fire_event

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

The description adds the specific operational requirement 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., event handlers may run asynchronously), non-idempotency, or what happens after firing. Since annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, the added context is modest but not misleading.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Fire a custom ServiceNow event') and adds a relevant prerequisite. Every word contributes value 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?

The description, combined with the schema, covers the essentials: what to fire, on which record, and the write-enabled prerequisite. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain return values, asynchronous behavior, or side effects. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for an agent trying to reason about consequences.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the description does not need to restate field semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already documents all five parameters adequately. 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 clearly states a specific action: 'Fire a custom ServiceNow event for a specific record.' It uses a concrete verb and resource, and the 'custom event' + 'specific record' language distinguishes it from related tools like register_event or list_event_registry. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 implies when to use the tool (to fire a custom event on a record) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. The only guidance is the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which is a condition rather than a usage guideline. No sibling tools are mentioned as alternatives.

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