retain_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description needs to convey behavioral traits. It correctly discloses the primary effect (prevents auto-deletion) and implies a toggle, but it does not explicitly state that setting retain=false will un-retain, nor does it mention reversibility or permissions. The behavior is partially transparent but leaves room for clarification.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that directly states the purpose and effect with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately clear.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for basic usage. It lacks edge-case details such as behavior when the event is already retained or when an invalid event_id is provided, but these are likely covered by the output schema and are not critical for a straightforward toggle.

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 fully documents both parameters (event_id and retain). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the action ('Mark an event as retained (favorited)') and the resource ('event'), with a specific consequence ('so it won't be auto-deleted'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_event or mark_event_false_positive by focusing on retention.

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 the tool—when an event should be protected from automatic deletion—and provides clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is straightforward enough to infer correct usage.

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