create_common_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses id allocation, default values for omitted fields, and the write-refusal behavior for structurally invalid lists, which is valuable. It does not mention the dryRun behavior in the description, but the schema documents it.

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?

Three dense, purposeful sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action, then adds critical defaults and safety behavior without 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?

For a 6-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, target file, defaults, id allocation, and validation safety. It does not fully explain dryRun's diff return shape, but the schema covers that parameter.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining defaults (empty command list, trigger 0, switchId 1) and the force override semantics, which helps the agent invoke parameters correctly.

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 'Create a new common event' — a specific verb and resource (data/CommonEvents.json) — and distinguishes it from siblings like update_common_event and call_common_event by emphasizing creation and reusability. This makes the tool's role unmistakable.

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 clearly frames the creation context ('Create a new common event') and provides practical guidance on required fields and defaults. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling list plus the 'new' framing are sufficient for correct selection.

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