record_application_event

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only false, non-idempotent), the description discloses that events are agent-reported and unverified, that replies halt follow-ups, and that auto-acks are not human replies. This materially shapes the agent's expectations around state changes and trust.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded purpose, and every sentence contributes domain logic. Slightly telegraphic wording, but appropriately compact.

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?

The description covers core workflow rules well (reconcile before retry, replies stop follow-ups, auto-ack caveat) but omits explanation of app_id, evidence, message_id, and followup_days. Given 0% schema parameter coverage(reference, callback), the agent must infer too much.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies 'kind' semantics modestly (real vs auto replies, handoff/closed categories), but it never explains app_id, evidence, message_id, or followup_days. Without schema descriptions, an agent has to guess at how to populate these fields.

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 opens with a specific verb (“Record”) and clearly scopes the resource to

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?

Gives operative rules: reconcile unknown sends before retry, replies stop follow-ups, interviews/decisions require handoff grateful. This tells the agent when and how to use the event kinds, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like sync_application_status.

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