event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this mutates personality/emotion state and names the return payload (evolved snapshot + voiceHint/logicHint), but says nothing about persistence, permissions, or whether the evolution 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?

Two short sentences that front-load the core action, then the trigger, then the return value. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 description covers action, trigger, and return content, and there is no output schema requiring explanation. However, for a state-mutating tool with no annotations, it omits side-effect and scope details an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 100%, so tags, text, importance, and drive_deltas are already documented in the schema, including the enum effect of importance=high. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action and effect: feeding a memory event to drive personality/emotion evolution. An agent understands the core job, though the definition does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like satisfy, intervene, or tick.

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?

"当本轮交互人格相关时调用" gives a clear triggering condition, but there is no mention of when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for adjacent needs (e.g. satisfy vs. event). Usage is implied rather than routed.

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