hippocampus_write_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects and runtime behavior. It only offers a biological metaphor ('Mimics hippocampal CA3 pattern separation and binding') without disclosing whether the write is persistent, idempotent, requires authentication, or how it affects retrievability via sibling search tools.

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 the primary action front-loaded. No redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail. The second sentence adds a short analogy without bloating the description.

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?

The tool has a complex nested schema, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not mention persistence, side effects, or the expected response format. It is too terse to fully prepare an agent for correct invocation, though the schema compensates partially.

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 description groups parameters conceptually (Who/Why/What/Where/Effects), which maps to some schema properties. However, it omits many fields (id, description, title, happened_at) and does not explain that the 'event' parameter is a required nested object. The input schema has detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3, but the description only partially compensates for the 0% coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Create') and resource ('episodic Event') with a structured format (Who/Why/What/Where/Effects blocks). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hippocampus_write_reflection and hippocampus_search_events, which target different operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where another tool (e.g., hippocampus_write_reflection) would be more appropriate. The intended use is only implied by the name and description.

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