record_run_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: transactional atomicity (sequence allocation, persistence, child work-item creation, projection updates in one transaction) and the absence of implicit current-run setting. This goes beyond a bare action statement, though it omits permission or failure semantics.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence provides distinct value: the first defines the action, the second explains transactional scope and a key side-effect disambiguation. No filler or redundancy.

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 20 parameters and rich schema descriptions, the description appropriately focuses on non-obvious cross-cutting behavior (transactionality and child work-item creation). The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though additional usage guidance would push it higher.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 20 parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the action: append one structured event to a run's durable authority ledger. It specifies the resource (run's ledger) and the scope (one structured event), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `store` or `begin_run`.

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 implies usage through the verb 'append' and notes that it never sets an implicit current run, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions/alternatives. The context is present but not explicit.

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