hints_record_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the recording side effect and the conditional return of nudge context, which is useful. However, it does not explain when nudge context is returned, where events are stored, or any authorization requirements.

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 the core action front-loaded and no redundant wording. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently, though 'optional nudge context' could be more explicit.

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 definition is thin for a tool with seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. An agent cannot tell what 'optional nudge context' means, when it appears, or how the recorded event relates to the sibling hints tools.

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 needed to explain the seven parameters, but it only mentions the central 'event' concept. Optional fields such as path, tool, mcp_server, composer_mode, conversation_id, and is_background_agent receive no semantic explanation beyond their names.

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 uses a specific action ('Record') with a clear object ('a Cursor workflow activity event') and notes that it returns 'optional nudge context.' The verb clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get/set/dismiss tools, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus hints_get_context, hints_dismiss_nudge, or hints_set_preferences. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Cursor workflow activity event,' with no stated exclusions or alternatives.

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