Report an event from your backend

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

Goes well past the annotations by naming the exact outcome states (accepted / duplicate / suppressed), explaining each one's cause, reporting the resolved install_epoch_id, and specifying the 404 customer_user_not_found meaning. The duplicate narrative is consistent with idempotentHint=true, and 'nothing was collected' under denied measurement is a real disclosure the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; the identifier mechanism comes first, then routing, then the response contract. The response sentence is dense, but every clause (status names, causes, install_epoch_id, 404) carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by fully documenting return statuses and the error case. With 9 parameters, nested consent, and mutation semantics, this is about as complete as a description can be without duplicating the schema.

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 already 89%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine call-level meaning: which identifier to supply, that no installation id is required, and what event_id repetition does. It also surfaces the consent.measurement gating that determines whether the event is stored at all.

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 and resource ('Report an event ... from your own backend') and pins the identifier model (customer_user_id passed to AttriKit.setUserID; no device installation id). This clearly separates it from the read-side siblings list_recent_events and export_events, which is exactly the distinction an agent needs.

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?

Gives a clear context of use: server-to-server reporting from your own backend, using the id your app already registered. It also states the precondition of a write-scoped API key. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use case (e.g. versus list/lookup tools), so it is strong but not fully routing.

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