record_capacity_event

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description need not restate it. What it fails to add is any of the context annotations cannot convey: what 'destructive' means here, whether events are append-only, validation rules on the enum attribution, or how entries relate to a chain/role.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ('typed attribution') appears early. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing guidance rather than a virtue.

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 five-value attribution enum whose semantics (partner_performed vs human_performed vs human_corrected) materially affect correct invocation, the description offers no decision support. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the input-side context is too thin.

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 reported at 0% and the description only gestures at 'typed attribution', which duplicates the event_type enum already visible in the schema. It adds no meaning for role, chain_id, or the free-text description field, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Log') and resource ('capacity-relevant event'), which distinguishes it from read-side siblings like get_capacity_events and from other recorders like record_catch_event and record_gate_skip. However, 'capacity-relevant' is left undefined, so the agent must infer the domain boundary from the enum rather than the prose.

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?

No guidance on when to log a capacity event versus using record_catch_event, record_gate_skip, update_capacity_stage, or get_capacity_events. The description never states the triggering condition or any prerequisite (e.g., an existing chain/role).

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