Report events as added to the code

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

The description discloses that the tool updates the dashboard to reflect events as declared but not yet arrived, which is a behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It also clarifies the prerequisite of having written tracking calls. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 sentences, with the primary instruction front-loaded. It avoids fluff and every sentence contributes to understanding when and how to use the tool.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, timing, and constraints. It doesn't elaborate on return values, but the annotations and context make this acceptable. The idempotency hint is present in annotations.

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 schema already documents the 'events' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds the crucial constraint that only events with actual written tracking calls should be included, reinforcing the 'actually written' condition from the usage guidance.

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 identifies the tool's function: reporting events as declared after writing tracking calls. It uses a specific verb ('tells the dashboard') and distinguishes this from planning-only, aligning with the tool name and title.

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?

It explicitly states when to call ('once you have actually written the tracking calls') and when not to ('Do not call it for events you only planned to add'). This provides clear usage guidelines with an exclusion, though it doesn't name alternative sibling tools.

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