connectif_custom_events

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Direct Connectif API operations' and mentions an 'action' selector, but it does not explain side effects, authentication, rate limits, or what the operation does. Critically, it references an 'action' parameter that is not present in the input schema, making the tool appear inconsistent.

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 short sentences with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the resource name and provides a clear instruction to use 'action.' While it is under-specified, that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue—it is efficient and to the point.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, so the description is the sole source of contextual information. It does not enumerate the operations available, provide examples, explain return values, or cover error cases. It is far too minimal to be genuinely useful in selecting and invoking the tool.

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 input schema has zero properties, giving a baseline of 4. The description introduces an 'action' parameter that is not in the schema, adding some meaning but without enumerating possible values. This inconsistency reduces the value provided, as the parameter is undefined and the schema doesn't support it.

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 says 'Direct Connectif API operations for custom_events,' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name with a generic word 'operations.' It identifies the resource (custom_events) but fails to specify what concrete actions are performed. Mentioning 'Use action to select an official operation' is vague and doesn't clarify the tool's purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, and the only hint is the resource name 'custom_events.' It does not provide context about when this tool is appropriate or when another connectif_* tool would be better.

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