build_name_input

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'Read-only: returns { command },' which tells the agent this tool has no side effects and produces a command object for further use. This adds key behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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, well-structured sentence with an em-dash clarifying the purpose, followed by a short note on return type. Every word adds value—no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

For a simple builder tool with 3 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it builds, how it will be used, its read-only nature, and the returned shape. It could elaborate on the command structure, but the provided information is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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% and each parameter already has a semantic description (e.g., actorId: 'The actor whose name is entered'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Build a Name Input Processing (303) event command for insertion via insert_event_commands — open the name-entry screen for an actor.' This identifies the specific verb (build), resource (Name Input Processing event command), and purpose, distinguishing it from other sibling builder tools.

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 phrase 'for insertion via insert_event_commands' provides explicit context on how to use this tool: generate a command, then insert it. It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow is clearly implied. This counts as clear context without exclusions, meeting the '4' criterion.

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