ingest_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It identifies the tool as a write operation and details authentication requirements and field values. However, it lacks information on side effects, error handling, rate limits, or idempotency, which would be beneficial for a mutation tool.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, prerequisites, field list. It is front-loaded and concise, with no extraneous content.

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 absence of an output schema, the description could explain return values or error responses. However, it covers the essential aspects: action, auth, and input fields. For a simple ingest tool, this is nearly complete, missing only output behavior.

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 only defines 'event' as an object with additionalProperties, providing no structure. The description compensates by listing supported fields (eventType, title, entitySelector, properties, etc.) and their examples, adding significant semantic 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 clearly states the verb ('Ingest'), the resource ('custom event into Dynatrace'), and the specific HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ingest_bizevents and ingest_logs by specifying 'custom event', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit prerequisites (DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true, specific API token scope) and lists required and optional fields. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings, which is a minor omission.

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