send_event_to_external_input_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions that Arcanna generates a new internal ID, but it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or the impact of sending data. The error-handling note is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by an error-handling note, then a parameter list. It is relatively concise, though the 'Parameters:' header and empty line add slight redundancy. The structure is clear but could be tighter.

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?

The description includes return value details despite no output schema, which is good. However, it does not specify the expected format or keys for the event dictionary, leaving ambiguity for nested objects. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools or explain prerequisites. Overall, adequate for a simple tool but not comprehensive.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning: job_id as 'Unique identifier for the external input job' and event as 'A raw dictionary containing event/alert/incident data.' This compensates for the missing schema descriptions and provides clarity beyond the titles.

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 action: send a JSON event payload to Arcanna for a decision, generating a new internal ID. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'send_event_with_id_to_external_input_job', which presumably takes an existing ID. The verb and resource are specific and 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?

While the description provides an error-handling instruction ('do not use any other tool, ask the user'), it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It implies use for new events without an ID, but this is not directly stated. No exclusions or alternatives are described.

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