Fire an event as the test player

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it fires the same event as the game would, as the sandbox test player, and is used for verification. No contradictions 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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core action and purpose, and the second adds parameter context. No fluff, every word earns its place.

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 test tool, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. However, it lacks information about return values or confirmation of success. Given there is no output schema, the description could provide more detail on what happens after sending (e.g., triggers tasks/achievements and returns status). It is minimally viable but has gaps.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters ('event' and 'params') with examples. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'params are the event parameters (statistics/states) your rule references,' which clarifies their role in triggering rules. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enhances understanding.

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 the verb ('Send'), resource ('custom event'), and purpose ('trigger tasks/achievements and verify they respond'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like specter_test_achievement and specter_create_event by specifying it's for firing events as the test player.

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 explicitly says 'Use to trigger tasks/achievements and verify they respond,' which gives clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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