submit_distribution_points

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 mentions 'post distribution data,' implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens on failure (e.g., data persistence, error responses). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action ('post distribution data') and purpose ('graphed on Datadog's dashboards'), making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 is a mutation (implied by 'post') with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, data format, or integration context, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The description does not compensate for the absence of structured data, leaving gaps in understanding.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as there is nothing to compensate for, and the description does not contradict 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 states the tool 'allows you to post distribution data that can be graphed on Datadog's dashboards,' which provides a vague purpose. It mentions 'post distribution data' (verb+resource) but lacks specificity about what distribution data entails or how it differs from similar tools like 'submit_series' or 'metrics_submit_series' among siblings. It distinguishes from read-only siblings but not clearly from other data submission tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions graphing on dashboards, which implies usage for visualization, but does not specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over other data submission tools like 'submit_series' or 'metrics_submit_series' in the sibling list. This leaves the agent without clear decision-making criteria.

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