insert_event_commands

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses validation-before-write, refusal on structural problems, the force override, advisory warnings never blocking, and the exact return shape. It even explains the verbose flag and how to read the full result back, which goes well beyond basic mutation tool 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 information-dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, target requirements, validation behavior, force override, warnings, return shape, and verbose option. It is organized logically from action to outcome, with no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return value shape and how to verify a splice. It covers all key contexts: targets, position, validation, failure modes, override, advisory findings, and verbosity. The only minor omission (dryRun) is already covered in the parameter schema, and the description even points to get_map_event as a read-back path.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning by grouping parameters per target (mapId+eventId+pageIndex vs commonEventId vs troopId+pageIndex), explaining that commands should come from build_* builders, and clarifying position default and force/verbose effects. This significantly reduces guesswork about how parameters interrelate.

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 a specific action: "Insert a pre-built sequence of event commands ... into any of the three command lists an MZ project has". It distinguishes itself from the read-only build_* tools and clearly states its mutating nature. The target-specific breakdown (map_event, common_event, troop_page) removes ambiguity about scope.

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 explicitly positions this as the "mutating companion to the read-only builders" and tells users to pass commands from build_* tools. It also clarifies target-specific required IDs. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative add_event_command for single-command insertion or state when not to use this tool, only implying it through "sequence of event commands".

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