eventstream_add_derived_stream

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the automatic connection logic for input_nodes when only one stream exists. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded purpose followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return value ('Updated definition summary'). No missing essential information.

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 0%, but the description explains all three parameters (session_id, stream_name, input_nodes) with clear semantics. It details the auto-connection behavior of input_nodes, adding value beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Add a derived stream to the eventstream definition.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like eventstream_add_custom_endpoint_destination or eventstream_add_sample_data_source.

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 guidance for the 'input_nodes' parameter (auto-connect behavior when None), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not definitive.

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