trigger-app-event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful operational context by stating a 90-second timeout and warning that event names/payloads must be app-documented. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, whether the call blocks until the app finishes handling the event, or error behavior—significant for a trigger-like action.

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 three sentences with no redundancy: purpose, usage restriction, and timeout are each stated once. Every sentence earns its place, and the tool name is not merely echoed.

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 is minimally viable for a complex 18-parameter tool, especially because the schema has full coverage and an output schema exists. Still, it omits side-effect guidance, alternative-tool differentiation, and detail about what happens after the event is triggered, which leaves an agent without a complete safety picture.

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 all 18 parameters. The description adds only general context—that the payload is optional and that event names/payload shapes must follow app documentation—which is marginal beyond the schema's own detailed descriptions.

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 states a clear action—asking the app to handle an app-defined automation or test event—and mentions an optional structured payload. It conveys the target resource and distinguishes this from a generic event query, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as 'events'.

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 an explicit precondition: 'Call this only for event names and payload shapes the app documents.' This tells the agent not to invent or assume events. It does not name alternative tools or provide exhaustive when-not-to-use guidance, but the core usage constraint is clear.

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