sb_event

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's bar is lower. It does not contradict annotations and adds a small amount of behavioral context through examples of possible actions. However, it does not disclose whether the action replaces existing settings, whether it is reversible, or any side effects beyond setting a click action. It adds minimal value beyond what annotations already provide.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the main purpose immediately, then gives illustrative examples and a clear exclusion. There is no filler, and the structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 has 5 parameters (2 required, one nested object), no output schema, and no annotation of behavior beyond read/destructive hints, the description is too thin. It fails to explain key aspects like the action format, payload usage, dry_run semantics, trigger defaults, or what success/failure looks like. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema or guess, making the description incomplete for safe and 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?

Schema description coverage is only 40% (action and trigger have some description), and the tool description provides no additional parameter meaning. It does not explain what 'id' refers to, what values 'action' accepts (beyond the schema's vague hint), the purpose of 'payload', or the effect of 'dry_run'. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving most parameters semantically undefined.

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 tool's function: assigning a click action to a node, with concrete examples (open cart, go to a page, open a pop-up). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sb_bind for purchase actions, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from siblings.

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 provides an explicit when-not-to-use instruction: 'A purchase is not one: use sb_bind action.' This gives clear guidance on choosing the right tool for a specific case. The general usage (assigning click actions to nodes) is also implied by the opening phrase, giving sufficient context for an agent to select it appropriately.

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