eventstream_add_custom_endpoint_destination

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 'deprecated' labels on endpoint_url and method parameters. It does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error consequences.

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 concise with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words, though the structure could be more streamlined. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, many optional/deprecated) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and parameter meanings but lacks return value descriptions, error handling, or usage examples. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing each parameter and providing brief explanations (e.g., 'List of stream names that feed this destination'). However, it lacks format details, constraints, or examples for parameters like 'headers' and 'method'. It adds some value but not full clarity.

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 'Add a custom endpoint destination to the eventstream definition,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'eventstream_add_custom_endpoint_source' and 'eventstream_add_eventhouse_destination' by targeting a custom endpoint specifically.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'eventstream_add_eventhouse_destination'. It does not specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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