send_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses fire-and-forget automation triggering, durable storage, and the side effect of creating a new contact for unknown emails. Missing details on error handling for missing or conflicting parameters, but still informative.

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, each sentence adds essential information: purpose, identification, side effects, and return value. No unnecessary words 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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input constraints, behavior (fire-and-forget, durable), and return shape (202 accepted). It lacks error scenarios but is adequate for a fire-and-forget event tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the XOR constraint for email/contactId, the conditional requirement for sender, and the 8KB limit for payload, which are not in the schema.

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 states it records a custom event about a contact, provides examples like 'order_placed', and specifies identification by email or contactId. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on event recording.

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 explicitly states the XOR constraint for email or contactId and mentions that an unknown email creates a new contact. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the usage context is clear.

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