Append a conversation event to the current thread's context graph, capturing role, content, and source reference with idempotency for reliable tracking.
MANAGER WRITE: append one exact current-thread conversation event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| task_id | No | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| event_type | Yes | ||
| source_ref | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this is an append/write operation and scopes it to the current thread, but does not explain idempotency behavior, required permissions, error conditions, or whether appends are reversible or deduplicated.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally efficient. However, the phrase 'one exact current-thread conversation event' is slightly terse/cryptic and could be clearer without becoming verbose.
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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It conveys the core action and current-thread scope, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described, but it omits parameter guidance and critical behavioral context needed to invoke the tool safely.
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 0% across 7 parameters, with 5 required fields including role, event_type, content, source_ref, and idempotency_key. The description mentions no parameter names or meanings, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema and leaves the agent without required input semantics.
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 specific verb, resource, and scope: 'append one exact current-thread conversation event.' An agent can tell it is a write operation for conversation events, but the description does not differentiate it from sibling write tools such as context_write_intents or session_write.
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?
Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternatives. The 'MANAGER WRITE' prefix implies a manager-level write, but does not tell the agent when this tool is appropriate versus other context or memory write tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.