Send Event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: event name must match automation trigger, mutual exclusivity of contactId/email, and optional payload accessible via event.* variables. Missing details on idempotency, rate limits, or error handling, but sufficient for core behavior.

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?

Well-structured with sections like Purpose, When to use, Workflow, and Important. Each sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy. Efficient and easy to read.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return value or error responses. However, it covers usage context, parameter semantics, and workflow integration adequately. The missing output info is a minor gap for completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the event name matching requirement, the mutual exclusivity of contactId and email, and how the payload is used in automation steps. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Fire an event to trigger automations for a specific contact.' It uses a specific verb (fire) and resource (event), and distinguishes from siblings like 'manage-events' by detailing the workflow and usage context.

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?

Provides explicit scenarios: triggering automations for a contact and testing automations. Also outlines a prerequisite workflow. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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