push_event

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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries real extra weight: it discloses the propagation effect (visible to other workers) and a failure mode (rejection when the queue is full). It does not connect the non-idempotent hint to duplicate risk on retry, which would have earned a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, with the failure condition appended. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the queue-full behavior is covered. But with 0% schema description coverage and a nested payload object, the agent gets no guidance on what to put in the four parameters, leaving a substantial gap for a 3-required-param 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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, and the description mentions none of them: event_type, severity (with its enum), payload, or the source default. The word 'observation' only loosely gestures at payload, so the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('observation ... onto the triage queue') plus the effect (visible to other workers). This clearly separates it from siblings like poll_event_queue and complete_event, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It implies usage ('an observation the agent made') and gives one constraint ('Rejected when the queue is full'), but never states when to prefer this over poll_event_queue, complete_event, or release_event, nor any prerequisite or conflict conditions.

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