memory_record_event

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes immutability and idempotency for identical external_id and data, but does not explicitly state that the tool creates a new record (a write operation) or describe failure modes, authorization needs, or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a crucial behavioral detail about idempotency. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has one parameter with a rich schema and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and key behavioral nuance (idempotency), but could be more explicit about the creation effect and output nature. Still, the output schema presumably handles return value documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Since the schema already includes descriptions for each property of EventInput, baseline is 3. No additional value from the description is observed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Record immutable evidence' uses a specific verb ('record') and resource ('immutable evidence'), clearly distinguishing this tool from its siblings (memory_read, memory_search, memory_apply, memory_history, memory_patch_read) which focus on reading, searching, or modifying existing data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly indicates when to use this tool (recording new immutable events) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as memory_read for reading. The sibling tool names provide context, but explicit usage guidance would improve clarity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.