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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the plan gating and the w:<name> dispatch convention. It stops short of disclosing what happens when a name collides with an existing event, which is the main behavioral risk for a non-idempotent create.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the follow-up workflow and the plan constraint. No filler. The telegraphic "Send it afterwards as w:<name>" is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, which keeps it off a 5.

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 4-parameter create mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the follow-up send step, and plan eligibility, but omits duplicate-name behavior, whether the created event identifier is needed downstream, and whether properties can be amended later. Adequate, with real gaps.

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 25%, so the description needs to compensate and partially does: it enumerates the four property types (string, number, date, boolean) that constrain the nested `properties` array. The `title` and `description` parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the surface unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Define a workspace event and its typed properties") and enumerates the property types allowed, so the agent knows exactly what is being created. It does not name the sibling it is distinct from (update-workspace-event, delete-workspace-event), but the "send it afterwards" clause implicitly routes to send-event.

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 "send it afterwards as w:<name>" line gives a real usage sequence: define here, then dispatch through send-event. "Pro and Business plans" states an eligibility constraint. However there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. what to do if the event already exists, or how this differs from update-workspace-event).

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