record_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool creates a persisted event dict and returns an event_id. No destructive behavior implied. Adequately covers creation behavior without needing to mention auth or rate limits.

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 short and well-structured: one-line summary, contextual usage note, then parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description provides complete information: what it does, when to use, parameter meanings, and return value (persisted event dict with event_id). No gaps for this tool's complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains each parameter meaningfully: event_type as 'Category string', source as 'Associated file path or source name', note as 'Free-text annotation stored in metadata.note', chunk_ids as 'Chunk identifiers involved'. Adds substantial value beyond names.

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 tool records a custom episodic event in the memory timeline, with examples of usage. It distinguishes from search-related siblings (e.g., search_memory) by noting it 'without triggering a search', making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 indicates when to use: for annotating significant moments without triggering a search. It gives context (e.g., 'user reviewed this document') but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives like ask_memory. However, the sibling list provides implicit differentiation.

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