add_event_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the key non-obvious behavior: writes are refused for structurally invalid pages unless force:true is passed, and 'nothing is saved' on refusal. This is valuable context beyond the schema, though it doesn't discuss permissions or return values.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then a critical safety caveat. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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?

Given the complexity (nested command object, 7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and the most important validation behavior. It doesn't mention success return values or batch alternatives, but the schema fills in parameter details. Slightly above average due to the validation caveat.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed explanations for all 7 parameters. The description repeats the force override behavior but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function with a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('a command'), and scope ('to an event page'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like insert_event_commands by focusing on a single command rather than a batch.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention batch insertion tools, builder functions, or when to prefer this over insert_event_commands. The only implicit clue is the singular 'a command', which is not enough.

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