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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: the event is created as a draft, a draft is private until published, it does not add anything to the member's calendar, and dry_run:true creates nothing while returning what would be created. These details materially shape how an agent should invoke the tool and set expectations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the trigger phrases, the public-event scoping, the draft behavior, the calendar exclusion, and the dry-run guidance. The description is front-loaded with the core when-to-use condition and contains no filler or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 create tool with weak annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers scope, draft visibility, the no-calendar caveat, and a safe dry-run path. It does not explicitly describe what the real (non-dry-run) response contains, but the dry-run behavior implies the returned event shape, leaving only a minor gap.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds workflow guidance around dry_run, but does not explain the semantic meaning of parameters like starts_at, ends_at, or location beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'create, host, plan or set up a PUBLIC event' and 'Creates ONE hosted event on Connections - its own public page with RSVPs and tickets'. It clearly distinguishes this public-event creation tool from related concepts like calendar events, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('when the member asks to create, host, plan or set up a PUBLIC event') and when not to: for 'add it to my calendar', a meeting, appointment, or blocked-out time, use connections_calendar_add instead. It also provides a concrete pre-write workflow with dry_run, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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