Create event

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

Annotations indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name and annotations already imply. It does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or creation specifics (e.g., whether it returns the created event). The description is neither contradictory nor enriching.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without verbose filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is as concise as possible for the information it provides.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and the description covers only a small fraction of the behavior and parameter space. It omits details about required fields (name, date), optional fields (event_type, distance, athlete), return values, and creation semantics. For a create tool of this complexity, the description is severely incomplete.

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 for two parameters (priority and CTL target) by mapping them to the 'priority' and 'ctl_target' fields, which are otherwise undocumented in the schema. However, with schema description coverage at only 25% and six parameters lacking any explanation, the description fails to compensate for the overall lack of parameter clarity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('race/event'), and highlights key parameters (priority and CTL target) that distinguish it from event management siblings. It clearly differentiates from tp_update_event and tp_delete_event by the action it performs.

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: use this tool when creating a new race/event. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like tp_update_event for modifying existing events. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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