Send Event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing key constraints: event name must match trigger, contactId/email mutual exclusion, and payload semantics via event.* variables. It does not cover return values or error behavior, so a 4 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?

The description is well-structured with bolded headers and concise bullet points. Every sentence adds value, covering purpose, usage, workflow, and important caveats without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, workflow, and critical constraints. It misses return value details, but that is not required given the absence of an output schema. Overall, it is adequately complete.

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 schema already has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by explaining the mutual exclusion requirement and how the payload is used in automations, pushing it to a 4.

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 and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like send-email or send-broadcast, which send messages rather than trigger automations.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' bullets and a workflow (create-event → create-automation → send-event) give clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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