eventstream_create_from_definition

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating mutation. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context: it states the tool creates an eventstream, which is consistent with destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing eventstreams), required permissions, or behavior on failure. The return value is vaguely described as 'Creation results'.

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 no extraneous text. It uses a standard docstring format for parameters and return, making it easy to parse. Every line contributes necessary information. A slight improvement could integrate the param docs into a single flowing sentence, but current structure is clean and efficient.

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?

Despite having only 2 simple parameters and an output schema, the description lacks important context. It does not explain the concept of 'current definition' or indicate prerequisites (e.g., having built a definition via other tools like eventstream_validate_definition). The agent may not know how to obtain or prepare the definition, leading to potential misuse. The tool's destructive nature is acknowledged only through annotations.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description bears full responsibility for parameter meaning. It provides brief descriptions for both parameters ('Builder session ID', 'Target Fabric workspace ID') and mentions a return value. These additions are adequate but not rich; they lack details on format, sources, or constraints. Given low schema coverage, the description just meets the baseline.

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 tool creates an eventstream from a definition, specifying the verb 'Create', the resource 'eventstream', and the source 'from the current definition'. This distinguishes it from related tools like eventstream_create (which likely creates from scratch) and eventstream_validate_definition. However, it does not explain what 'the current definition' refers to (e.g., a builder session's loaded definition), leaving some ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., need for a loaded definition) or specify when not to use it (e.g., if creating from scratch). The qualifier 'from the current definition' offers only a weak implicit hint about context.

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