create_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without revealing how 'natural language commands' are interpreted, whether existing events are overwritten, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a creation 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 a single sentence, directly states the core purpose, and contains no redundant or filler words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, nested objects (graphic, commands), and no output schema or annotations, the description is too terse. It fails to explain the required structure of events, the semantics of triggers, or what the result of creation means. Significant contextual gaps remain.

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 adds meaning to the 'commands' parameter by suggesting they are natural language instructions, which is not evident from the schema. The schema already provides basic descriptions for most parameters (71% coverage), so the description's extra hint for the key 'commands' parameter earns it a score above the baseline of 3.

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 ('Create an event') and the target ('on a map'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_map and create_project. The qualifier 'with natural language commands' adds a distinctive feature that differentiates this event-creation tool from other creation tools.

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 usage: it should be used when creating an event on a map. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_map, generate_scenario), nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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