passgage_track_entrance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses only the basic action and omits behavioral details such as whether events are append-only, whether duplicate events are prevented, or what response is returned. The single sentence adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond the verb 'record'.

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 efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded. It is concise and free of filler, though it provides no structured additional context because it contains none.

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 has a small parameter set with complete schema descriptions and an enum for entrance_type, which reduces the burden on the description. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the one-line description does not explain return values, idempotency, or the relationship to the similar create_entrance sibling, leaving it moderately incomplete.

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?

All four parameters have detailed descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics; it neither clarifies relationships between parameters nor provides usage notes that the schema does not already offer.

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 'Record an entrance/exit event for a user' uses a specific verb ('record') and identifies the resource (entrance/exit events) and target (a user). It clearly conveys the core action but does not distinguish this from the similar sibling passgage_create_entrance, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as passgage_create_entrance or the entrance list/get tools. There are no usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.

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