invariance_workflow_event_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (write) and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it links case/run/node evidence and external refs, bridges into DNA, and advises passing idempotency_key for safe retries. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three concise sentences with no fluff. The primary action and examples are front-loaded, and the idempotency note is placed last. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is well-structured.

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?

For a write operation with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, evidence linking, DNA bridging, and retry safety. It doesn't detail every parameter, but the schema handles that. It could mention return value, but that's minor for a write tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 89%, so most parameters have descriptions. The description adds extra value by highlighting idempotency_key for safe retries and providing example event types, which aids in correct usage. It doesn't repeat schema details but adds meaningful guidance.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Record a semantic workflow event on a case', with concrete examples of event types. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing 'workflow event' and its DNA bridging, making it unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: when to record a semantic workflow event, and how it links evidence and is bridged into DNA. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like invariance_case_event_create, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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