submit_structured_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses deduplication key, upsert-in-place behavior, the duplicate-title gate with its default and effect, applied defaults, enum downgrade behavior, and metadata stripping — all beyond what the schema conveys.

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 well-organized with a short summary followed by bullet points for key behaviors. It is concise for the complexity it covers, though the phrase '(see details)' hints at external info that isn't provided inline, slightly reducing self-contained clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (deduplication, gating, defaults, enum handling, metadata), the description covers all major behaviors. An output schema exists, so return value documentation is not needed. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100% and the schema descriptions are already detailed for every parameter. The description adds little new parameter-specific meaning; it mostly restates the schema, so a baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit structured event records... and persist them to the Events collection.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_structured_records by calling itself 'the event counterpart,' making its scope unmistakable.

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 names the counterpart tool, which conveys when to use this vs. that (events vs. records). However, it does not detail when not to use it or provide alternative scenarios, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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