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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent, which aligns with the 'create paragraph' description. The description does not add behavioral detail beyond this, such as whether the created paragraph is returned, what happens on validation failure, or how automatic positioning works when position is omitted.

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 very short and mostly direct. The first sentence 'Create paragraph' is somewhat redundant with the title, but the second sentence adds the key context about creating under a CMS agenda event. Overall it is concise 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?

The description is too sparse for the complexity of the operation. It does not mention output or return value, error behavior, conditional requirements across block types, or relationship to thumbnail selection. Given eight parameters and conditional dependencies, the description alone leaves important operational context unstated.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all eight parameters, including conditional fields like content for text/quote blocks, embedUrl for embed blocks, and originalThumbnail for photo blocks. The tool description itself adds little beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 title and description clearly state the action: create a paragraph under a CMS agenda event. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create paragraphs under articles, maps, sounds, videos, or shop products. The description is slightly minimal but unambiguous.

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 guidance says to create one paragraph under a CMS agenda event, which signals the primary use case. It does not explicitly contrast with other cms_create_*_paragraph tools or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent based on the sibling list.

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