record_event

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

While no annotations exist, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the event becomes a first-class entity, missing endpoints auto-create as concept stubs, and flowKey groups events. However, it does not mention mutability, idempotency, or permission requirements.

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 sentences front-load the core purpose and then add essential side-effect details (auto-creation of stubs, flow grouping). No redundant or superfluous content.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core concept and side effects. It explains auto-creation of missing endpoints and flow grouping. However, it does not describe the return value or how 'importance' and other optional parameters behave in context.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context (role-typed relations, stub creation) but does not elaborate on individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Record' and the resource 'n-ary event', and explains the event becomes a first-class entity with role-typed relations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_event' or 'query_events' which retrieve or query 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?

The description implies when to use (recording an event) but does not explicitly differentiate from alternative event tools such as 'get_event', 'query_events', or 'get_event_flow'. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided.

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