upload_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the 1000-events-per-call cap, which is useful, but omits side effects (e.g., idempotency, overwrite vs append), error behavior, authentication requirements, or response format. For a data-write tool, this 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?

Two concise sentences with the action first and the limit second. No filler, every word earns its place. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Lacks crucial behavioral context for an ingestion tool: no idempotency, error handling, rate limits (beyond per-call cap), or relation to sibling tools. Since there's no output schema or annotations, the description should cover side effects and post-conditions, but it doesn't.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the events array structure and field requirements. The description adds the 1000-event limit, which is extra value, but doesn't elaborate on individual field semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (upload) and resource (user events) with context about the source (external system to CleverTap). It implies an ingestion action, distinguishable from sibling read tools like get_events and profile uploads like upload_profiles, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. The description hints at external ingestion but doesn't contrast with get_events or upload_profiles, nor does it mention scenarios where this tool should be avoided (e.g., large batches exceeding 1000 events).

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