create_scheduled_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 and discloses almost nothing beyond the entity-type list. It does not state that this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, that the event is created immediately and visible to the server, or any rate-limit 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently written, though its brevity reflects the small amount of information conveyed rather than disciplined coverage of a complex tool.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits the conditional field relationships and any behavioral context. The 100%-covered schema compensates for parameter gaps, making this minimally adequate but not complete.

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 schema already documents every parameter including the conditional requirements (channelId for STAGE/VOICE, location for EXTERNAL). The description's mention of Stage/Voice/External merely restates the entityType enum rather than adding format or constraint detail.

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 gives a specific verb ('Schedule') and resource ('server event') and enumerates the three event types (Stage, Voice, External). It does not name or distinguish itself from the close siblings edit_scheduled_event, delete_scheduled_event, or list_scheduled_events, but the verb itself makes the create intent unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the other scheduled-event tools, no prerequisites (e.g. needing a Stage/Voice channel first), and no mention of required permissions. The agent must infer everything about invocation context from the name alone.

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