insert_event_commands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses validation behavior (structural problems refuse the write, force override, advisory warnings never block), insertion position behavior (before end marker or at position), and the return shape. This is exceptional transparency for a mutating tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action. Several sentences carry dense but necessary details (validation, targeting, return shape). It is appropriately sized for a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, though it is longer than strictly minimal.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, target-specific IDs, validation rules, and the return object. It does not mention dryRun, but the schema describes that parameter. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining target-dependent parameter combinations (map_event needs mapId+eventId+pageIndex, common_event needs commonEventId, troop_page needs troopId+pageIndex) and clarifies that commands come from build_* tools. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 inserts a pre-built sequence of event commands into MZ project command lists, naming the specific lists and mentioning it is the mutating companion to the read-only builders. It distinguishes from build_* tools but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling add_event_command, which appears to handle single command insertion.

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 description gives clear context: use this when you have commands from build_* tools and want to write them into a list, with target-specific parameter requirements. However, it does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., for a single command use add_event_command) or mention alternatives beyond the implicit builder contrast.

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