record_event

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

Annotations already indicate write behavior (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds little beyond 'bounded' and 'significant,' which are qualitative and do not disclose concrete behavioral traits like side effects or persistence.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, followed immediately by a key usage guideline. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given 11 parameters, many siblings, and no output schema context in description, this is insufficient. It does not explain what constitutes a 'bounded significant event,' valid event types, or how the tool integrates with other tools. The description is too brief to be complete.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It provides no information about any of the 11 parameters, including required ones like event_type and summary, making it impossible for an agent to know how to fill them.

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 tool records a bounded significant event, with the verb 'record' and object 'event'. It also hints at scope by excluding full transcripts, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like record_correction or record_failure.

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 provides a negative guideline ('Full transcripts should not be sent here'), suggesting it's for summaries, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or context for when to use this tool over siblings.

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