Log a structured coordination event with actor role, status, and payload for an assignment, retaining an immutable history for multi-agent collaboration.
Append a structured coordination event without mutating history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| payload | Yes | ||
| actor_id | Yes | ||
| actor_role | Yes | ||
| event_type | Yes | ||
| assignment_id | Yes | ||
| base_revision | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The phrase 'without mutating history' offers a hint about side effects, but it is ambiguous and potentially confusing. The description does not mention revision conflict handling, validation rules, side effects on related records, or failure modes, which are likely relevant given the required 'base_revision' parameter.
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 focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds a key constraint. Despite being terse, it earns its length by stating the core purpose without filler.
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 complexity of the tool – seven required parameters, a nested payload object, an output schema, and a large set of sibling tools – the description is far too sparse. It provides no information about parameter semantics, event format, when to use this tool, or expected behavior on conflict. An agent cannot reliably select and invoke this tool with only this description.
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%, and the description adds no explanation of any of the seven required parameters. Terms like event_type, status, actor_role, and base_revision are left undefined, and the payload object's structure is completely unspecified. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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 uses a specific verb ('Append') and a specific resource ('structured coordination event'), making the core operation clear. It also adds a behavioral qualifier ('without mutating history') that helps set it apart from tools that modify existing data. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling event-specific tools like accept_event or reject_event, leaving some ambiguity about when this generic append is appropriate.
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. Sibling tools like accept_event, reject_event, and review_event suggest more specific actions, but there is no statement of when append_event is the right choice. An agent is left to infer the intended usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.