emit_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a significant behavioral trait: the tool does not alter Plan state. However, it does not explain what 'append' entails (e.g., persistence, outbox behavior), potential side effects outside plan state, or error handling. This is a useful but not exhaustive disclosure.

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 a single sentence followed by a clarifying statement. It is extremely concise, front-loads the main action, and earns every word. There is no superfluous information.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema that likely describes return values, and the description covers the core purpose and a key constraint. The main gap is the absence of parameter semantics, but that is handled by the schema. The relationship to flush_event_outbox or read_event is not clarified, but it is not essential for basic usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it says nothing about event_type, actor_id, role, content, or task_id. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic meaning beyond what the parameter names already imply. This leaves the agent to infer the meaning of 'role' or 'content' without guidance.

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 a resource ('audit Event'), and immediately clarifies that it does not change Plan state. This differentiates it from the many plan-modifying sibling tools such as add_task, edit_task, and update_task. The purpose is 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 phrase 'does not change Plan state' provides a clear context: use this tool when you need to record an audit event without affecting plan data. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but it gives a strong indication of when it is appropriate versus the plan-mutating tools in the sibling list.

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