send_stim_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: the event is logged to the session log even if the transport fails, and it is also punched into the acquisition stream when markers are supported. This goes beyond a simple 'deliver' and gives valuable operational insight.

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 concise paragraphs. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second explains logging and stream marker behavior. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or 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?

The tool has 11 parameters but the schema fully documents them, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The description covers the core purpose and key behaviors (failure logging, stream marking), which is sufficient for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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 every parameter is already described. The description adds some context (e.g., 'logged against the EEG clock', marker behavior) but does not elaborate on specific parameters beyond what the schema provides. Thus the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Deliver one stimulation command, and log it against the EEG clock', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_stim_train (train vs. one command) and arm/disarm_stim (delivery vs. setup).

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 establishes clear context: it delivers a single stimulation command and logs it. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the phrase 'one stimulation command' implicitly separates it from send_stim_train and other siblings. No when-not-to-use guidance is given, but the purpose is focused enough.

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