create_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a specific behavior: the schema validates /events/send payloads and returns 422 on mismatch, which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral details such as whether the event name must be unique, whether the operation is idempotent, or any permission requirements. It provides some transparency but not a complete picture.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create a custom-event definition') and then adds the most important detail about schema validation. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is compact yet informative.

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 simple create tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: creating a definition and the optional validation side effect. It doesn't mention success responses or duplicate-name handling, but given the low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. A brief note on return values or unique-name behavior would improve it, but it's not a major 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying allowed schema values ('string'|'number'|'boolean'|'date') and explaining the validation effect (422 on mismatch). This enriches the agent's understanding of the 'schema' parameter without repeating the schema's own description.

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 tool creates a custom-event definition (POST /events), distinguishing it from siblings like send_event (which sends events) and list_events/update_event/delete_event. The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous. It also hints at the schema's role, making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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 gives clear context: it defines an event schema that validates /events/send payloads, implying this should be used before sending events with a schema. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like send_event, leaving some inference to the agent. It's clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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