Send PMDG Event

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that it triggers switches, buttons, and knobs in the cockpit via the PMDG SDK. There is no contradiction; the added detail helps the agent understand that calling this tool can change aircraft state.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, gives the relevant aircraft variants, and ends with actionable discovery guidance. Every sentence contributes information the agent needs.

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 relatively simple three-parameter tool, the description plus rich schema and annotations cover the essential knowledge: what the tool does, how to find valid event names, how parameters behave, and the mutating/destructive nature. The output schema further reduces the need for return-value documentation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by pointing to event discovery via msfs_search_lvars(), but it does not elaborate on parameter semantics; the schema already thoroughly describes variant detection, parameter position values, and event_name examples.

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 names a specific verb and resource: sending a PMDG control event for the 777 or 737 NG3, and clarifies it triggers cockpit controls via the PMDG SDK. This distinguishes it from generic event tools like msfs_trigger_event and from PMDG read tools like msfs_get_pmdg_var.

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 one useful prerequisite: find events using msfs_search_lvars() and look for an 'events' field. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives such as msfs_trigger_event or msfs_trigger_custom_event, nor does it explain why PMDG events require a dedicated tool.

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