post_event

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 behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('Record') but does not mention side effects, validation, idempotency, permissions, or failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded. However, it is too terse to cover necessary behavioral details, so it loses a point for sacrificing substance.

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?

With 4 parameters (including a nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It omits parameter meanings, expected behavior, error handling, and return values, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only provides example values for the 'type' parameter, leaving 'product_id', 'source', and 'meta' completely unexplained. No clarification of required vs. optional roles beyond 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's purpose with a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('analytics event'), and lists concrete examples of event types. This effectively differentiates it from the sibling tools, which are unrelated utilities.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is only implied by the verb and context, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or references to other tools.

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