create_common_event

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the file destination, default field values, allocation of the next unused id, and the refusal-to-write behavior for invalid command lists with force override. This is substantial, though it could mention potential side effects or prerequisites like a loaded project.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information (defaults, id allocation, validation/force). No redundant or filler content.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema cover creation, defaults, validation, force, and return id. It lacks explicit mention of project dependency or duplicate-name behavior, but these are minor gaps given the overall richness.

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 value by explaining defaults for omitted fields (empty command list, trigger 0, switchId 1) and the force override behavior, which are not fully captured in the schema. This elevates it above baseline.

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: 'Create a new common event (reusable event-command list) in data/CommonEvents.json.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('common event'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_common_event and call_common_event by focusing on new creation.

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?

Provides clear usage context: only `name` is required, omitted fields use defaults, and `force: true` overrides validation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of update_common_event or other alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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