send_event_with_id_to_external_input_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool sends data to Arcanna and returns a dict with status and error_message, implying mutation and potential failure. However, it does not disclose authorization requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or whether it is destructive. The description is adequate but not thorough given the lack of annotations.

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 a clear summary sentence followed by 'Parameters:' and 'Returns:' sections using bullet points. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the parameter descriptions are redundant with the argument list (though needed due to schema deficiencies), and the return section could be slightly more concise. Still, it earns its place.

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 explains all parameters and the return value, which is helpful. However, it assumes the agent knows that job_id must correspond to an existing external input job (presumably retrievable via 'get_external_input_jobs'), and it does not mention any dependencies or setup steps. The return value includes error_message but no explanation of error handling. Given the tool's complexity (3 required params, nested object), it is partially 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning it provides no descriptions for parameters. The tool's description explicitly describes each parameter (job_id as int referencing an external input job, event as raw dict, event_id as unique identifier), adding significant meaning beyond the schema. It also details the return value structure, which is absent from any output 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 states the action ('Send') and the resource ('a JSON security alert/incident/event to Arcanna for ingestion'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'send_event_to_external_input_job' by including 'with_id' in the name and describing the event_id parameter, indicating this variant allows sending with a specific event identifier.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'send_event_to_external_input_job' (without event_id). It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing to obtain a job_id from 'get_external_input_jobs') or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.

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