user_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Record' implies a write, but the description says nothing about side effects, idempotency, required permissions, whether the event is persisted, or what the call returns. For a mutation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented required parameters, the description should carry far more. It omits payload expectations, side effects, and any usage context, leaving the agent without enough to call it 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 schema lists two required parameters (agent_id, action) but provides no property descriptions, so the description must clarify them. It only obliquely gestures at 'an agent' and never explains what an 'action' value should look like. The 100% coverage figure is misleading since there are essentially no documented properties to cover.

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?

States a verb ('Record') and a resource ('dashboard/user action for an agent'), so the basic intent is inferable. However, 'dashboard/user action' is vague and the description does nothing to distinguish this tool from the many task/agent-oriented siblings like task_status or register_drone. It is adequate but not specific enough to uniquely identify the operation.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related needs. The agent gets no routing signal at all beyond the vague noun phrase.

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