eventstream_add_eventhouse_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 no behavioral context beyond 'Add'. It does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or the mutation's scope. With annotations already conveying mutability, the description offers minimal additional transparency.

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 structured as a docstring with a clear purpose sentence followed by parameter explanations. It is appropriately sized for 9 parameters—each line adds value without excessive verbosity. Front-loading the main action is effective.

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?

While the output schema is available (reducing need to explain return), the description lacks context about how this destination fits into the broader eventstream workflow (e.g., relationship to start_definition, validation). It also doesn't clarify when to choose Eventhouse over other destination types.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides one-line explanations for all 9 parameters (e.g., 'Builder session ID', 'Target database name'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's type/name-only info. It also notes optional parameters and defaults, significantly aiding parameter understanding.

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 the action 'Add an Eventhouse destination' and the target resource 'eventstream definition'. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like eventstream_add_custom_endpoint_destination or eventstream_add_derived_stream.

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 (e.g., custom_endpoint or derived_stream). It lacks prerequisites, context, or any conditions under which this destination is appropriate.

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