Push data to a data stream

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: false, destructiveHint: false) are supplemented by the description, which adds the 60 KB per package hard limit, sub-300ms delivery, and payload shape constraint. No contradictions, but could mention 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?

Two sentences and a brief args line convey all essential information without redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 covers key details: delivery time, rate limit bypass, payload size cap, shape requirement, and return format. No output schema exists, but return values { success, bytes } are provided. Missing error behavior, but adequate for a push operation.

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%, but the description adds value by clarifying the relationship between stream (alias) and privateToken (alternatives), emphasizing data is a JSON object (typical shape), and noting default response_format. This goes beyond the schema's 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 clearly states the tool pushes a JSON payload to a data stream for sub-300ms delivery, distinguishing it from other tools like singular_register_data_stream (registration) and singular_get_control_state (control API) by emphasizing speed and bypassing rate limits.

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 mentions when to use this tool (to bypass the control API's per-minute rate limits) and a prerequisite (payload shape must match linked sub-composition's expectations). It implies when not to use (if you need to use the control API), but does not explicitly list alternatives.

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