call_common_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool validates existence of the common event, is read-only, returns `{ command }`, and writes nothing. This clearly conveys the safety profile and return behavior.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second clarifies behavior and integration, making it easy to parse.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, validation, side effects, and return format. There are no significant gaps that would leave an agent uncertain.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that commonEventId must reference an existing event (validation) and that the result composes into a command array, which gives the parameter context beyond the schema's basic description.

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 explicitly states the tool builds a 'Common Event' event command (code 117), specifies the target resource, and notes it is for insertion via insert_event_commands. This clearly distinguishes it from other build_* siblings by naming the specific command type and its composition context.

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?

It states the tool is used to generate a command for insertion into an event page, and that the return shape matches build_* tools for composing into thenBranch/commands arrays. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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