KB Record Event

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

Beyond the annotations, the description clarifies the operation is non-destructive and durable, explains the meaning of event_type values, and notes required vs optional parameters. It also recommends 'reason' for bypass entries. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: it front-loads the purpose, then details parameters and usage, and ends with sibling alternatives. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, when to use, and alternatives, providing complete context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already covers all parameters at 100%, but the description adds significant meaning by explaining event_type options (gate_bypass vs. gate_degraded) and the recommendation for 'reason' in bypass scenarios, going beyond simple schema descriptions.

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 action ('Append') and resource ('durable, non-destructive audit entry') for client-reported enforcement events. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing kb_gate_check, kb_consult, kb_audit, and kb_compliance.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this when an enforce hook bypassed or degraded the gate') and provides clear alternatives for gate status, consultation, and reading back events, making the usage context unambiguous.

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