Create Luma event

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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=false, the description adds only the action 'Create' without disclosing behavioral details such as side effects, auth requirements, or error scenarios. The description does not contradict annotations but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 concise with two sentences and no wasted words. However, for a tool with 15 parameters, it could be more informative while remaining concise.

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?

Given the complexity (15 parameters, nested objects), low schema coverage (7%), and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks details on input formatting, return values, and error handling, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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 only 7% (only 'confirmed' has a description). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, leaving many parameters unclear. It mentions 'event name, date/time, timezone' but does not map them to specific parameters or provide format details.

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 'Create a Luma event', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_event and update_event by focusing on creation. The additional condition about user confirmation further clarifies the scope.

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 states when to call the tool: 'only after the user has explicitly confirmed the event name, date/time, timezone, and supplied details.' This provides clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, missing some opportunity for guidance.

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