pws_create_event

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds useful context beyond that: 'BETA' warns of instability, 'Defaults to preview' signals the non-destructive default, and 'does not schedule an instance' clarifies the tool's limited scope. This exceeds the minimal information from 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence carries essential information with no filler or repetition.

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?

With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain how parameters relate to preview/create behavior, what the response contains, or how recurrence settings work. It only covers the high-level workflow.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate for the 10 parameters. It only mentions the 'preview' default, which is already in the schema. No meaning is added for important parameters like recurrenceType, importance, or eventLength.

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 function: 'PREVIEW OR CREATE a player-company event series through PWS.' It distinguishes from scheduling by explicitly noting that this does not schedule an instance and that pws_schedule_show should be used afterward. The verb 'create' and resource 'event series' are specific.

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 context: it says 'use pws_schedule_show afterward' and states 'Defaults to preview.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus the sibling pws_schedule_show, and indicates the default safe behavior.

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