Trigger an event

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: authentication is server-configured rather than model-supplied, payloads are tenant-defined open JSON, and the operation may notify recipients or change tenant data. It reinforces destructiveHint and idempotentHint=false without contradicting them.

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 dense but well organized, with the core action and endpoint first, followed by auth, body fields, reference, and safety caveats. The long field list is justified because the body schema is otherwise opaque. Minor redundancy exists between the opening sentence and the endpoint statement.

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 destructive write operation with no output schema, the description covers auth, confirmation, body structure, side effects, and a documentation reference. It does not describe the response or what happens after a successful trigger, which would be useful but is not strictly necessary for correct invocation.

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 only loosely defines body as arbitrary JSON, so the description compensates by listing the expected top-level body fields and clarifying that custom payloads remain open JSON. It also explains the auth parameter absence and confirms the exact payload shape. Path and confirm are already adequately described in 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 identifies the action ('Trigger an event'), the exact REST endpoint, and the mechanism ('Posts JSON to the configured integration function'). It also distinguishes this tool from nearby siblings like xmatters_trigger_an_incident by focusing specifically on events and integration functions.

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 gives important preconditions: operator write opt-in, confirm:true, and server-configured authentication. However, it never explicitly tells an agent when to choose this tool over alternatives such as xmatters_trigger_an_incident or xmatters_trigger_an_incident_form, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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