eventstream_start_definition

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it starts a session but provides no details about side effects, state changes, or required permissions. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Extremely concise: three sentences with no redundancy. The docstring-style format clearly separates purpose, parameters, and return value.

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?

With an output schema present (not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it still gives a vague summary. The tool has only 2 parameters and few complexities, so the description is adequate but lacks depth for a complete understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'name' parameter as 'Name of the eventstream to create' and 'description' as 'Optional description', adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions. However, it could be more detailed (e.g., constraints on name format).

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's function: starting a new eventstream definition builder session. The verb 'start' and resource 'eventstream definition builder session' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like eventstream_create and eventstream_get_definition.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when to start a session, or when other tools like eventstream_create_from_definition would be more appropriate.

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