Report an agent event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description earns credit for going beyond them with 'The same event_id is stored once' (concrete idempotency behavior) and for explaining that test=true excludes traffic from network totals, which is a real side effect not present in annotations. It still says nothing about validation failures, rate limits, or what a successful write returns.

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?

Every sentence carries an operative constraint and the core action is front-loaded in the first clause. It reads as one dense run-on block rather than being broken into scannable points, but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description is not obliged to explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. The main gap is that the tool is described as accepting numerous parameters while the schema declares an empty object, so an agent still lacks a definitive argument list; the description compensates well but not fully.

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 supplied input schema has zero properties, so the description is doing all the work: it defines from/to as lowercase slugs with examples (planner, researcher, coder), the 60-character limit on label, the conditional requirement on to, and the meaning of test and tool. That is substantial added meaning beyond an empty schema, though it never enumerates the complete parameter set, leaving an agent to infer names and remaining arguments.

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 verb and resource ('Record one event from an agent') and enumerates the event kinds it accepts (message, handoff, review, file write, action, alert, heartbeat, tool call), which clearly separates it from the read-oriented siblings get_network and list_events. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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?

It gives real conditional guidance: 'to is required for message, handoff, and review', 'set tool' to mark a tool call, and 'Set test=true for traffic you do not want in network totals'. What is missing is any statement of when not to use it or an explicit pointer to list_events for reading events back.

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