Create traceability event

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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the event must be 'reviewed', payload structures are authoritative, and the request_key provides idempotent retry with identical retries replaying. It stops short of describing the response or any side effects on animal/inventory state.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb and typed-kinds list, then payload guidance, then the idempotency prerequisite. Every sentence carries information, though the middle sentence packs several distinct facts and the parenthetical kind list is long.

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 mutation tool with a nested payload object, no output schema, and partial schema descriptions, the definition covers the shape of the input, the tolerance for incomplete facts, and the idempotency contract. What it omits — permission requirements and what the call returns — matters but is narrow given the payload guidance provided.

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 coverage is 50% and the text compensates well: it explains the canonical payload contents (populations, optional movement/identification facts, explicit inventory effects, links) and gives the request_key its semantic role of idempotent replay. The bare source/farm_id properties remain unexplained, keeping it below 5.

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 verb ('Create') plus a typed resource and enumerates the nine event kinds (movement, purchase, sale, import, export, death, slaughter, disposal, identification), so an agent knows exactly what artefact is produced. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like correct_traceability_event or void_traceability_event, which also target traceability 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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated kinds and the note that structures are authoritative but incomplete facts are allowed, which hints at what input is acceptable. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use routing against the correction/void siblings, and no stated prerequisites (permissions, prior review step) beyond the request_key requirement.

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