add_event_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits, and it does so well by stating that writes are refused (nothing saved) on structural invalidity and that force: true overrides this. This goes beyond the obvious 'add' action and covers a key failure mode. However, it does not mention the success-side behavior, return format, or the dryRun/verbose preview features, which are only present in the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second explains the validation refusal behavior, and the third points to the force override. There is no wordy or redundant filler, making it easy to scan and act on.

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 covers the essential validation behavior and force override, but it stops short of explaining the broader workflow: how to build a valid command object (sibling build_* tools), what the default response contains, or how dryRun/verbose affect the interaction. Given the absence of an output schema and the nested command structure, more contextual guidance would help an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds only marginal parameter meaning beyond the schema. It references force: true and the wrong-parameter-count criterion, but the schema already documents force and all other parameters thoroughly. The description does not clarify command construction (e.g., the relationship to build_* tools), leaving the command object semantics to the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Add a command to an event page.' This clearly states the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like insert_event_commands or set_event_page by focusing on adding a single command to a specific event page. The validation/force caveat further clarifies the primary action without muddying the purpose.

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 when to use the tool ('Add a command to an event page') and describes the validation gate, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools. There is no guidance distinguishing it from insert_event_commands or noting that command objects should be constructed via build_* tools, leaving usage somewhat inferred rather than directed.

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