Correct traceability event

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, leaving behavior largely to the description, which delivers: writes are append-only revisions (not in-place mutation), projections rebuild atomically, and optimistic concurrency via expected_revision. It doesn't clarify reversibility of the new revision or return content, but it goes well beyond the annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler; the core (append full replacement revision, atomic rebuild) is front-loaded before the concurrency/idempotency caveats.

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?

For a write tool with no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and a nested payload object, the description covers the tricky concurrency contract but omits payload shape, what the call returns (new revision? updated event?), and permission/auth needs. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains expected_revision and request_key semantics well, but leaves event_id, reason, source, farm_id, and the nested payload object completely undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb (correct) and resource (traceability event) plus the mechanism: 'append a full replacement revision' with atomic projection rebuild. This distinguishes it implicitly from create_traceability_event and void_traceability_event, though it doesn't name those siblings directly.

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 explains the concurrency guard (expected_revision against stale edits) and idempotency behavior (mismatched request_key body conflicts), which frames when this call is safe/failing. However, it never states when to pick this over void_traceability_event or create_traceability_event, nor any prerequisites.

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