loyalteez_create_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add real value by sketching the downstream pipeline: 'fire event → check auth → reward from balance.' That tells the agent an auth check gates rewards. However it says nothing about permissions required to create events, idempotency/duplicate handling, rate limits, or error behavior for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences plus a doc link; the core action is front-loaded and nothing is wasted. The pipeline arrow notation is compact rather than verbose. Minor deduction because the 'infinitely flexible' phrasing is more promotional than 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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a deeply nested object parameter, the description does not cover return values, permission requirements, or failure modes, relying instead on the external docs link. It is adequate for the happy path but leaves the agent under-informed about edge behavior.

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% and each nested field (name, defaultReward, maxClaimsPerUser, detectionMethods, etc.) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, such as which fields are optional vs required.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Create a custom event for your loyalty program.' The follow-up sentence clarifies that any string can serve as an event type, which distinguishes this config-creation tool from runtime siblings like loyalteez_track_event. It stops short of explicitly naming the closest alternative, loyalteez_create_events_batch.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite a sibling (loyalteez_create_events_batch) that clearly overlaps. The 'See also' doc pointer gestures at further context but doesn't state selection criteria or prerequisites. Usage is only weakly implied by 'Create a custom event'.

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