cigchat_subscriber_log_custom_event

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

The description discloses the authentication requirement (Manage Flow scope) and the side effect that a real message is delivered, which is behavior beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain how the delivery occurs, what data is used, or any return value, leaving the agent with incomplete behavioral knowledge.

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 brief and includes the endpoint, but the first sentence is a fragment that mirrors the tool name, and the second sentence's meaning is not fully clear. It could be more effectively structured.

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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description omits critical information such as the meaning of user_ns and event_name, how the event data maps to the delivered message, and whether the operation is synchronous. The provided text is insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

None of the five parameters (user_ns, event_name, text_value, price_value, number_value) are explained in the description, and the schema has no descriptions for them (0% coverage), so the agent has no guidance on what values to provide.

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 restates the tool name ('Log custom event') but then adds 'Delivers a real message to a person,' which confuses the primary function. It doesn't clearly explain that logging an event is distinct from directly sending a message, and the relationship between the two actions is ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many send_* siblings. The only contextual info is the required 'Manage Flow' scope, which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

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