nexo_lifecycle_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the event is 'durable' (persistent) and lists supported actions. The note about v7.5 behavior adds some context about side effects (returning a plan). However, it omits details like permissions required, whether it modifies existing data, or the exact effect on the system state. An agent would have incomplete information about the tool's operational implications.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the tool's purpose and a crucial behavioral detail. No extraneous words are present, and the most critical information (what the tool does and the v7.5 behavior) is front-loaded. This structure allows an agent to quickly grasp the tool's role.

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?

Given the tool's 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides an adequate but not fully complete picture. It explains the event types and a specific version behavior but does not describe the return value, error conditions, or how the canonical_actions plan is used. An agent might need to infer or experiment to understand the full context of use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear definitions for all 8 parameters including required fields, defaults, and allowed values. The description text does not add new information beyond what is already in the schema; it merely reiterates the action list and the v7.5 context. Therefore, the description adds no additional semantic value for parameter understanding beyond the schema baseline.

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 tool records durable lifecycle events and lists the specific event types (close, delete, archive, switch, app-exit, window-close). It identifies the action (Record) and resource (lifecycle event) precisely. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from the many sibling lifecycle tools like 'nexo_lifecycle_complete_canonical' or 'nexo_lifecycle_status', which limits clarity for an agent choosing among 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 description provides some usage context by noting that in v7.5, Brain returns a canonical_actions plan for diary-triggering actions with a live session_id. This hints at when to use the tool (for diary-triggering actions) but does not offer explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention alternative tools for similar purposes. The agent is left to infer usage boundaries.

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