rybbit_track_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: events are sent sequentially, the result reports per-event success/failure, and the meaning of siteId and API key scopes. This goes beyond minimal but could add more about partial failures or error handling.

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 long, with the main purpose front-loaded and additional notes (siteId, API key scope) appended concisely. It earns its place without redundancy, though it could be slightly more succinct.

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?

For a batch tool with nested object schemas and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (sequential processing, per-event results) and important context (siteId source, auth scope). It is not exhaustive but sufficient for an agent to invoke 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% for the 'events' parameter, so the schema already documents all fields. The description adds overall context about batch behavior and that each event matches rybbit_track_event, but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly states it sends a batch of 1-50 tracking events in one call, using a specific verb ('send') and resource ('tracking events'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling 'rybbit_track_event' by describing the batch nature and event count range.

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 use for multiple events (batch size 1-50) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the singular 'rybbit_track_event' or when not to use it. It provides contextual guidance about siteId and API key scope, but no clear alternative or exclusion guidance.

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