Api ebios rm feared events create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known from structured data. The description adds no context of its own about what a created feared event requires (study linkage, risk matrix, gravity scale) or what happens on success, so it contributes nothing beyond the annotation block and is not contradictory to it.

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?

It is a single token with zero padding, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of what the tool does or what it returns.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, an unspecified free-form body, and dozens of near-identically named EBIOS RM siblings, the description leaves the agent unable to call it correctly. Everything an agent needs — payload shape, prerequisites, uniqueness constraints — is missing.

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 single parameter 'body' is an opaque anyOf object with 0% schema description coverage and no required fields, and the description supplies no hint about its expected contents (e.g., study, gravity, ref_id). With one entirely undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 is just a snake_case restatement of the tool name, so the agent learns only what the identifier already implies: create a 'feared event' in the EBIOS RM domain. It adds no verb-plus-resource detail beyond that tautology and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings such as feared_events_batch_create_create or feared_events_partial_update.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever about when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The agent must infer from the name alone whether to create a single feared event versus using the batch-create or partial-update variants.

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