ingest_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 does reveal a key behavior: appending to the audit chain, which implies a persistent, mutating effect. Still, it omits crucial behavior such as idempotency, validation, duplicate handling, and whether the operation is reversible.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and effect, and every word carries meaning. Despite being terse, it is appropriately concise for what it conveys.

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?

The tool has six parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only a one-line behavioral summary. An agent would lack guidance on how to populate payload and features, what response to expect, and what side effects or prerequisites matter. This is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the six parameters. Terms like 'Score' hint at the 'value' parameter, and 'event' hints at event_id, but payload, features, stream, and timestamp are entirely unexplained. This leaves the agent guessing about how to construct a valid request.

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 states an action ('Score'/'append'), a resource ('event'), and the target ('audit chain'), which broadly distinguishes it from the sibling tools verify_audit, stream_stats, and export_audit. However, 'Score' is somewhat ambiguous and could be read as evaluation rather than ingestion, so it is not perfectly crisp.

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 phrase 'one event incrementally' implies this tool is for single-event ingestion rather than bulk operations or verification, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage mostly to inference.

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