ingest_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It reveals the tool is a write operation for memory storage, but lacks details on idempotency, side effects, rate limits, or what happens on 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines purpose, the second extends usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

While the description covers purpose and basic usage, it lacks details about return values or behavioral guarantees. For a logging tool with 6 parameters, some additional context (e.g., what the response looks like) would improve completeness.

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?

Description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. Schema coverage is high (83%), so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify any parameters further.

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 verb 'Record' and the resource 'interaction event', explaining its purpose for future memory synthesis. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'query' or 'search' which are read-oriented.

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 provides clear context: 'Use this to capture messages, tool calls, or other signals' for memory synthesis. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios, but the context is sufficient given sibling tools are all reads.

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