Add a single event (practice, game, scrimmage, picture day, cancellation, etc.) to a program's calendar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| ends_at | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| opponent | No | ||
| starts_at | Yes | ISO 8601 timestamp | |
| program_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behaviors. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions required, or error conditions (e.g., missing program_id).
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, clear sentence with no filler, but it could be slightly expanded to include essential context without losing conciseness.
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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides minimal context about return values, prerequisites, or usage scenarios, leaving significant gaps for the AI agent.
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 very low (13%), yet the description only hints at the 'kind' parameter via examples. Other parameters like 'notes', 'address', 'ends_at', 'location', 'opponent', and 'program_id' lack any added meaning or format guidance.
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 ('Add') and the resource ('a single event'), lists examples of event kinds, and distinguishes from sibling tools like org_cancel_program_event and org_list_program_events.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to add vs. cancel events. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are clearly grouped by prefix (admin_, daycare_, org_, parent_) and within each group have distinct, non-overlapping purposes. For example, parent_add_kid vs parent_remove_kid are unambiguous.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with role prefix and action_noun structure. Minor exceptions like 'nearby_programs' are standalone and do not disrupt the overall consistency.
With 72 tools, this is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the tools cover multiple user roles, the count is excessive and likely overwhelming for an agent, falling into the 'too many' category.
The tool set covers most core workflows for parents, orgs, and admins, but notable gaps exist: there is no tool to create a program or daycare, and admin tools for approving pending claims or discoveries are missing, leaving dead ends.
