Submit an experience event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the operation targets a stateful session and that events are 'restricted' (受限), but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, error behavior for invalid event/session combinations, or what state change occurs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first, no filler, and an immediately useful example list. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than economy.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, an opaque nested payload object, and an undocumented enum value, the definition is too thin for an agent to call correctly. It should at least explain payload contents and the full set of valid event types.

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 there is a nested free-form 'payload' object plus an enum whose meaning is non-obvious. The description names three of the four enum values (answer, hint, restart) but omits 'finish', and says nothing about session_id or the shape of payload, leaving the schema largely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('向有状态的体验提交一个受限事件' = submit a restricted event to a stateful experience) and enumerates representative event examples (answer, hint request, restart). This distinguishes it reasonably from discovery/launch siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with continue_experience or finish_experience.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. It never states the preconditions (an active session), nor when this should be chosen over continue_experience, finish_experience, or prepare_experience_launch, all of which are near neighbours. The event examples hint at context but do not constitute usage rules.

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