createEvent

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'create' which is inherent to the tool name, and offers no information about required fields despite the schema having zero required properties, potential side effects, auth needs, or response format. This is a significant transparency 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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, making it immediate and easy to parse. It is appropriately concise for a simple statement of purpose, though it could include more substance while remaining concise.

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 14 parameters, zero required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient to guide an agent on correct usage. It does not explain the relationship between parameters, the semantics of 'event' in FUB, or any operational constraints. The complexity of the schema demands more contextual information than a single sentence provides.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 14 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 creates a new event in FUB, with examples like 'lead event, property inquiry'. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling createEmEvent, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createEmEvent or createCall. The description simply states what it does without discussing prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without decision-making support for tool selection.

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