cite_event

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: the citation is resolved-or-created, appended to the citation list with no duplicates, and no other event field is touched. It stops short of saying what the response looks like or how it behaves against a duplicate handle.

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 compact sentences, with the hard constraint ('ALREADY exists') front-loaded and the resolution/dedup behavior following. No filler, though the parenthetical about handles and inline fields is slightly dense.

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 non-destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is written, what is left untouched, and the dedup rule. The only real gap is the unspecified return value and error behavior on a bad event handle.

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% and the embedded CitationInput docstring already spells out the citation/source/source_title precedence, page, and confidence semantics. The description only summarizes that precedence at a high level, so it adds little beyond the structured schema.

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 and resource ('Attach a citation to an event') and immediately narrows the scope with the capitalized 'ALREADY exists', which separates it from the add_event/add_citation creation siblings. An agent can tell what it writes and to which object type 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?

Gives concrete triggering conditions: source an event you didn't create inline, an event added via the Gramps web UI, or an event surfaced by list_unsourced_facts. It names a sibling tool as the discovery path but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer cite_event over cite_object or cite_child_link, so routing for the other cite_* variants is left to inference.

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