create_workflow_custom_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it validates payload item types, requires explicit user confirmation, and returns a success or error message. It explains that when confirm=False, it returns a preview without creating the event. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, usage instructions, and parameter list. It is front-loaded with the key confirmation requirement. While it is fairly detailed, it could be slightly more concise, but the structure aids readability.

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 (6 parameters, nested schema), the description covers the main behavior and all parameters. It explains the confirmation workflow and validation. The return value is vaguely described as 'Success or error message,' but since the context indicates an output schema exists, this is acceptable. It adequately supports an agent's decision-making.

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?

The description explains all six parameters in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the schema. For example, it lists the allowed types for payload items, which the schema references via $defs. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so effectively.

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's purpose: 'Create a Workflow Catalog Custom Event.' It uses a specific verb (create) and resource (Workflow Catalog Custom Event), and the tool name is self-explanatory. Among siblings, there is no other creation tool for custom events, so differentiation is clear.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Show a preview of the event configuration and ask for user confirmation before proceeding. Only create the event after explicit confirmation from user (confirm=True).' It instructs the agent to first call with confirm=False to show a preview, then only proceed with confirm=True after user acceptance. This clearly defines when and how to use the tool.

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