add_event_to_family

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write; the description adds useful context about the 'Family' role assignment and citation practice. It does not mention the require_citation default or that setting it false deliberately records an UNSOURCED fact, nor whether repeat calls duplicate events.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the scope constraint and examples; no filler. The final sentence ('Cite it to the record establishing the fact') is a little vague about which record, slightly diluting an otherwise tight definition.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and full schema documentation, the essentials are largely carried by the schema and annotations. However, the description never confirms what a successful call produces or how it interacts with require_citation being false, which is a meaningful behavioral gap for an agent.

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 the event type/date/place/citation fields and their resolution rules are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the citation habit ('cite it to the record establishing the fact') without adding syntax or precedence detail, which matches the baseline 3 for schema-covered params.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('add a dated/placed event to an existing family') and immediately carves out scope ('Use for family-level facts'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling add_event_to_person. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (family-level facts) and gives concrete examples (marriage, divorce, residence, census), plus the notable behavior that the event gets the 'Family' role. It stops short of naming add_event_to_person as the alternative for person-level facts, so the routing rule is inferred rather than stated.

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