post-event

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description confirms this by saying 'Post', and adds useful behavioral details about supporting markdown and @mentions. No contradictions. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or required permissions, but the annotations cover the basic behavior sufficiently.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value—no fluff. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and key features.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the comprehensive schema descriptions, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not mention the return value or response format, which could be helpful as there is no output schema. Other than that, the context for using the tool is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, with all 8 parameters having descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what is already in the schema, which is adequate but not exceptional. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Post a custom event to Datadog', specifying the verb 'post' and the resource 'custom event'. It further distinguishes the tool's capability by noting support for markdown and @mentions. This clarity sets it apart from sibling tools like get-events or other creation tools for different resources.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the context of 'custom event' implies it's for arbitrary event creation, there is no mention of when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., for system events). The guidance is only implicit.

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