nexus_track_app_metric

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds a useful return contract ('JSON {success, errors} or an error string') but does not elaborate on side effects, auth requirements, or error scenarios. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states what the tool does, gives an example, and includes the return shape. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 that all parameters are documented in the schema and an output schema exists, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. The only minor ambiguity is whether metadata_json should be a JSON-encoded string, but the schema's type and title already clarify the structure adequately.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters. The description's example loosely connects to the event_type parameter but adds little beyond the schema's own field descriptions. 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Report an app metric' via v2 GraphQL, and provides a concrete example ('a Vortex collection install event'). It clearly communicates the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like nexus_track_mod or nexus_graphql_query.

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 a clear context for use: reporting app metrics such as collection install events. It gives an actionable example but does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, 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.