add_event_dispatcher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any side effects, such as whether the blueprint is modified permanently, whether compilation is required, or any permissions needed. It also doesn't clarify what happens if the dispatcher already exists or if the blueprint is invalid. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is concise and structured with a clear summary, argument explanations, a knowledge base reference, and an example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and provides necessary details without excessive verbosity. The KB reference adds value but could be considered extra; overall, each line earns its place.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 params, one optional with a specific format) and no annotations, the description provides adequate basics but lacks critical behavioral details like error handling, prerequisites (e.g., blueprint must exist), and post-conditions. An output schema exists, so return format is covered, but operational context is thin.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description does provide some context: it explains that 'params' is a list of parameter dicts with 'name' and 'type' keys, and gives an example. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only says 'array of objects'. However, it doesn't detail each parameter individually; blueprint_name and dispatcher_name are self-explanatory from their names.

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 action: 'Add an Event Dispatcher to a Blueprint.' and explains the purpose of event dispatchers in Blueprints. It is specific about the resource (Blueprint) and the operation (adding an event dispatcher), and it includes an example call. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the distinct resource and operation make it distinguishable.

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 implies when to use this tool: when adding an event dispatcher to a blueprint, and provides a brief explanation of event dispatchers. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like call_event_dispatcher or bind_event_to_dispatcher, which are related but have different purposes. The context is clear enough for basic usage, but lacks exclusions.

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