publish_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Crea o actualiza' (creates/updates) without revealing side effects, required permissions, update semantics (e.g., id required), idempotency, or return format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Crea o actualiza') and lists key field categories. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite having 17 parameters, the description provides only a brief overview. It does not explain create vs. update behavior (e.g., using id to update), required fields, potential validations, or what the tool returns. The rich schema covers parameters well, but behavioral context is almost entirely absent, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool of this complexity.

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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds a high-level list of fields (fechas, lugar, precio, fotos, descripción, organizador) but does not provide additional semantic depth beyond what is in the schema. No parameter info is needed to compensate for low coverage, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 creates or updates an Event in Rovee, listing key fields (dates, place, price, photos, description, organizer). This is specific and distinct from sibling publish tools (publish_blog_post, publish_poi, etc.) by explicitly targeting events.

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 implies usage for events (create/update), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no edge cases. The tool name and scope make the primary use obvious, but the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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