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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the event code is auto-generated from the name, default provisioning includes registration form, ticketing, and configs, and template content copying runs asynchronously after creation. These details help an agent understand side effects and timing, though it doesn't cover failure modes or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded with the core action and efficiently packs key behavioral notes into four well-structured sentences. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (8 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects an agent needs to invoke it correctly: default provisioning, template copying behavior (including async), and team context. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the async nature of template content copying and clarifying the 'instead' semantics of template_id (replacing default provisioning). It also succinctly restates the team_id condition, though other parameters rely on the schema for details.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('event'), and specifies scope ('in one of your teams'). It distinguishes this tool from other create_* siblings by focusing on events and explains the unique auto-generation of event code, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context for when to pass template_id (to copy an existing event's layout and content instead) and when team_id is needed (only when belonging to multiple teams). It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use this tool or naming a direct alternative for event creation, which is reasonable given no sibling performs the same core action.

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