kronos_create_event

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical runtime behavior: the max_count field has no lower-bound validation and callers must enforce minimum group size, the success response is an undocumented JSON string with an expected id, and error handling details exact HTTP failure patterns. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Although long, every section earns its place: purpose, numbered scenarios, required args, return format, and error handling. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses clear structure (Args, Returns, Error Handling) plus a prominent ВАЖНО warning, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 description is complete for a complex creation tool: it covers three concrete scenarios, required versus optional fields, the undocumented response shape, and the two main error modes. It effectively closes the gaps left by annotations and the input schema, giving an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already documents each field in detail, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds meaningful scenario-to-parameter mappings (which fields belong to which booking type) and reiterates the max_count caveat. This is above the baseline because it explains how to combine parameters, not just what each parameter means.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Создать запись (бронь) в Кронос, POST /api/v1/event.' It clearly states the tool creates a Kronos booking and differentiates the three supported creation scenarios, which separates it from sibling tools that list, get, update, or delete events.

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 gives explicit scenario-based usage: individual booking, group event, and child booking, with required and forbidden field combinations for each (e.g., is_group=True without order/contact). It also warns that is_group=True with contact yields HTTP 400. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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