build_flow_command

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

With no annotations, the description appropriately discloses 'Read-only' and the return shape '{ command }'. This communicates that the tool has no mutation side effects and gives a clear behavioral boundary, though it doesn't detail error cases or further side effects.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and every element contributes: the four kinds, their IDs, the insertion relationship, and the read-only note. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity and 100% schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what is built, the available kinds, the insertion workflow, and the return shape, while relying on the schema for detailed parameter syntax.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping numeric command IDs to each kind ('wait (230...'), clarifying that label/jump_to_label take a 'named jump target', and indicating 'N frames' for wait. This ties the parameters to actual usage beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 verb ('Build'), resource ('flow-control event command'), and purpose ('for insertion via insert_event_commands'). It enumerates the four specific command kinds with numeric IDs, distinguishing it from sibling builders like build_show_text or build_conditional_branch.

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 explains that this tool builds commands for later insertion via insert_event_commands, providing clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, but the 'flow-control' scope plus the named sibling alternatives imply the differentiation.

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