Send CDP Event

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

Annotations already carry the core behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description states 'This is a write operation,' which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false but adds little beyond the annotation. It does add useful context that events feed real-time and batch decisioning, but omits side effects like duplicate-event behavior or downstream triggers.

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 tightly written and front-loads the core action with examples. The second sentence ('This is a write operation.') is somewhat redundant given readOnlyHint=false, but it is short and does not significantly bloat the description.

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 schema and annotations cover parameters and safety profile reasonably well, and the description frames the tool's role. However, it does not mention response behavior, whether the operation is synchronous, or how missing guestRef might be handled, and it provides no alternative routing. For a write operation with no idempotency, a bit more context about downstream effects would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are already fully documented. The tool description adds a high-level example of event types already present in the schema and provides no additional detail about individual parameters or their relationships.

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 uses a specific verb ('ingests') with a clear resource ('behavioral event') and destination ('Sitecore CDP'), and gives concrete event type examples. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like flow management, audience, or guest profile operations by focusing on event ingestion for a guest.

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 the tool is used when a behavioral event needs to be sent for real-time or batch decisioning, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives. The usage context is inferable but not stated directly.

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