trigger_batch_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions the batch limit but fails to explain authentication requirements, partial failure behavior, response format, or side effects. For a mutating operation, this lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 short sentences. The first states the core action and limit, the second provides usage context and efficiency reasoning. Every word earns its place, with 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?

While the schema covers parameters, the absence of an output schema and any description of return values or error handling leaves the context incomplete. The tool has batch semantics and nested objects, so some guidance on expected results or failure modes would improve completeness. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 already describes the 'events' array and all nested properties (channel, name, data, socketId) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond noting multi-channel notification, which is already implicit 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 the tool sends up to 10 events in one API call, using a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('events'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'trigger_event' by explicitly mentioning the batch capability, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 contrasts with individual event triggering ('More efficient than triggering events individually') and identifies the use case ('when you need to notify multiple channels'), giving clear context for when to choose this tool over the alternative. It stops short of describing when not to use it, but the guidance is strong.

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