emit_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the most important behavioral trait: the event is not a passive signal but 'start[s] every automation that waits on it,' implying fan-out and downstream side effects. It could further warn about the consequences of triggered automations, but the core mechanism is transparent.

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 sentences, no wasted words, with the core action front-loaded and examples embedded. Every clause earns its place.

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 core concept and trigger behavior are well explained, but a required parameter ('email') is semantically opaque with no annotation or output schema to compensate. The tool is simple enough that the main gap is the unexplained required parameter, making this adequate but incomplete.

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 only 33% — only 'name' has a schema description. The description adds nothing about the required 'email' parameter (its role in an event is entirely unexplained) or the 'variables' object. An agent has no way to know what 'email' means in this context.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Emit a named event, starting every automation that waits on it,' with concrete examples ('trial_started', 'invoice_overdue'). It also distinguishes itself from the alternative of directly naming an automation, which separates it from siblings like enroll_in_automation.

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?

'Use this when you want the configured sequences to decide what happens, rather than naming an automation yourself' is an explicit when-to-use statement that contrasts with the alternative approach. It doesn't name a specific sibling tool, but the behavioral contrast makes the selection criterion clear.

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