state_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose a key side effect: the state changes automatically after reporting the event. Yet it does not say whether the change is reversible, what happens on invalid input, whether there are additional side effects, or what kind of response the caller can expect.

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 composed of two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core operation immediately, and the second adds the essential behavioral consequence. It is concise and front-loaded, though slightly too sparse to be considered excellent.

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 simple event-reporting tool with a self-describing enum, this description is near-adequate: it explains the purpose and the automatic state effect. Still, there is no output schema and no annotation safety profile, and the description does not cover return behavior, failure modes, or when to choose this over sibling state 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?

The schema already documents 'context' and 'intensity' with useful descriptions. The tool description adds that 'event' is a named trigger that causes automatic state change, which gives the enum some semantic weight. However, it does not explain the meaning of the individual enum values or how 'intensity' and 'context' influence the resulting state change.

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 clearly states the action: 'Ein benanntes Ereignis melden' (report a named event), and adds the key consequence that the state changes automatically. This distinguishes it at least implicitly from sibling tools like state_inject or state_settle, which likely manipulate state directly, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 phrase 'Der Zustand verändert sich daraufhin von selbst' implies this tool is for triggering an automatic state transition rather than setting state directly. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and names no alternative tool, so the agent must infer the selection logic from the sibling names.

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