Send App Event

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the delivery model (broadcast to all matching running flows of this user, not a single target) and the implicit fact that stopped flows get nothing. It does not say whether delivery is synchronous or fire-and-forget, or what happens when no flow matches.

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?

Two short sentences, action first and consequence second, with no filler or hedging. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a simple two-parameter, non-destructive send operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and delivery scope adequately. Minor gap: no indication of the return value or error behavior for an unknown event name.

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 `event` (the event name used for trigger matching) and `data` (arbitrary payload) are already documented. The description reinforces that the event name is the matching key, but says nothing about the shape or handling of `data`, so it stays at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (send) and resource (a named App Event) and immediately explains the effect: running flows with a matching OnAppEvent trigger receive it. That fan-out semantics distinguishes it from the other flow-mutating siblings like trigger_component without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for notifying event-driven flows, and the 'running flows ... with OnAppEvent trigger' clause implicitly says when delivery happens. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of trigger_component or test_flow as alternatives, and no note on what to do if no flow is listening.

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