add_event_to_person

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: that adding a 'Birth'/'Death' event will set the person's primary reference if not already set, and that citations should point at the establishing record. It does not mention e.g. duplicate-event handling or error cases for a missing person.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by scope and side-effect caveats. No filler or redundancy.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, citation expectation, and a key side effect. It omits any mention of the return value or failure behavior (e.g. nonexistent person handle), a minor gap.

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 schema already documents person, event.type, date, place, citation, and require_citation. The description only reinforces citation intent and the type-specific Birth/Death side effect, adding marginal value over the structured fields.

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 (add) and resource (dated/placed event/fact) and scopes it to 'an existing person', which separates it from the sibling add_event_to_family by target entity. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

'Use for facts beyond birth/death: residence, occupation, census, baptism, immigration...' gives clear positive usage context with concrete examples. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative tool, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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