Log Auth Event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation with no destructive side effects. The description adds that it goes into the audit log and is frontend-originated, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential authorization requirements, rate limits, or what happens if duplicates are logged. With annotations lowering the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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, efficiently worded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's core function. It contains no filler or redundancy, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 tool with only 3 parameters (one required), full schema descriptions, and clear annotations, the description sufficiently covers the primary context: purpose and origin. It lacks an explicit note about the return value or error behavior, and with no output schema, that omission is slightly noticeable. Nevertheless, the overall context is adequate for a simple logging action, so it remains above the minimum viable threshold.

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 description coverage is 100%, as each parameter (event_type, user_email, metadata) already has a clear description. The tool description adds minimal additional meaning beyond 'login or logout' and 'audit log,' which slightly reinforces event_type but does not elaborate on metadata structure or formatting. Baseline for full schema coverage is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 action ('Log'), the resource ('a login or logout event'), and the destination ('into the audit log'). It directly matches the title and name, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose. It also naturally distinguishes itself from sibling audit-list tools which retrieve logs rather than create them.

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 'from the frontend' provides contextual guidance, indicating this tool is intended for client-side auth event logging. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the sibling tools are predominantly read-only audit log queries, making it clear this is the write counterpart. No formal exclusion criteria are given, so it stops short of a 5.

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