append_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that events are recorded for future AI sessions, implies persistence, and sets explicit content boundaries (what to include and exclude). It does not mention side effects like overwrite or error behavior, but for an append-style event logger the core behavior is clearly communicated, making this a strong but not perfect disclosure.

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?

The description is moderately long but every sentence contributes value, covering purpose, usage, and exclusions in a logical flow. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then branches into details. While a bit verbose, it avoids redundancy and is well-structured, earning a 4 rather than a 5 for being slightly over-explanatory.

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 6 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context. It tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool, what content qualifies, which event types to use (with special emphasis on user_message), and what to avoid. There is no missing information an agent needs to call it correctly; the lack of output schema is acceptable for an append-only logger.

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?

Even though the input schema already covers all parameters with 100% description coverage, the description adds substantial extra semantics. It elaborates on the event_type parameter, specifically clarifying the intended use of 'user_message' for meaningful user-provided facts, requirements, and context, and gives guidance on the content parameter by instructing proactive capture. This enriches the schema's definitions and helps the agent select appropriate values.

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 clearly states the tool records important events for future sessions, enumerates concrete event categories (decisions, bugs, test results, TODOs, discoveries, commands, state changes), and explicitly differentiates meaningful content from trivial chatter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on generic event logging rather than specialized ones like file changes or memory updates.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use during work for meaningful decisions, bugs, test results, TODOs, discoveries, commands, or state changes.' It also gives clear exclusion rules: 'Do NOT record trivial conversation (hello, thanks, okay) or private chain-of-thought.' Furthermore, it instructs proactive capture of user-provided information without requiring the user to ask, which is actionable and specific.

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