Event usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing the return content (workflows and segments referencing the event) and the impact framing ('what would break'), which helps the agent reason about the result. It stops short of richer context such as result size or truncation behavior.

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?

Four labeled sections, each one sentence, front-loaded with Purpose and free of redundancy. Zero waste; every line informs selection or invocation.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract ('the workflows and segments referencing this event') and the routing to alternatives. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what to expect back.

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?

There is one required parameter, eventName, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It refers to 'an event name' consistently with the parameter, but adds no format or matching detail (exact vs. partial, case sensitivity, whether the name must already exist). Partial compensation for the coverage gap justifies a baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show where an event name is referenced') and enumerates exactly what counts as a reference: workflows that trigger on it and segments that filter by it. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling analytics tools like plunk_get_event_stats and plunk_get_top_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?

Explicitly names what the tool is NOT for (firing frequency → plunk_get_event_stats or plunk_get_top_events) and gives a concrete trigger scenario ('Before deleting or renaming an event, to see what would break'). Both the when and the when-not/alternative are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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