Create Tickera Event

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

Annotations only indicate non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral context: defaults to 'draft' status so nothing goes public, and date parsing/storage format ('Y-m-d H:i'). These are useful side effects not derivable from annotations alone.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then practical usage details and a workflow pointer. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the default status behavior, date format handling, and the follow-up action. Combined with the fully described schema, this is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the date format behavior ('stored as Tickera's 'Y-m-d H:i'') and reinforcing the default for status. This clarifies the most complex parameter beyond the schema's example.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a Tickera event (tc_events)'. It also clarifies the scope ('Use for one performance/show date'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like tickera_list_events and tickera_get_event.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use for one performance/show date', implicitly excluding multi-date scenarios. Also gives a clear next step: 'After creating the event, add ticket tiers with tickera_create_ticket_type', guiding the agent on the workflow.

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