codex_record_audit_event

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

The description discloses governance restrictions, atomic task_closed requirements, idempotency of duplicate closure, the requirement that both PASS and exit_code=0 must hold, and the audit-only status of legacy prose. These are meaningful behavioral facts beyond the annotations, which only provide basic read/write/destructive hints.

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?

Every sentence carries useful contract information, but the description is a dense, unstructured block mixing governance rules, payload schemas, and validation conditions. It lacks a brief purpose statement up front and would benefit from more explicit structure.

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 the most important governance and payload contract details needed to call the tool correctly, including atomicity, idempotency, and evidence verification rules. It leaves gaps around return values, task_id semantics, and related_paths usage, but the core event payload contracts are well specified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden, and it provides detailed JSON shapes for major event types and the task_closed preconditions. It still does not clarify task_id or related_paths semantics, and leaves some event_type values (chatgpt.review, chatgpt.semantic_review) without explicit content contracts, so it is strong but incomplete.

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 name and input schema clearly identify this as an audit-event recording tool, and the description adds precise event_type-specific payload contracts for final_verdict, completion_obligation_settled, and bridge.test_evidence. However, there is no explicit verb+resource sentence in the description itself, and it does not directly differentiate itself from siblings like codex_audit or codex_events.

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 a strong access boundary ('Trusted ChatGPT/bridge governance only') and states that executors cannot certify evidence or acceptance, which implies when it may be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or define triggering conditions, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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