add_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write operation ('Add') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the event is editable later, or how failures are handled. No information on rate limits, side effects, or response format is included, leaving significant gaps for a mutation 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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with 6 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., valid project_path), behavioral details (e.g., what happens on success/failure), and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured safety or output information. More completeness is needed given the 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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'event' and 'map' are related, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., that event_id might need to be unique per map). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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 action ('Add') and target resource ('a new event to a map'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_actor' or 'add_item' by specifying events on maps, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'add_event_command' which might handle event components rather than whole 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing map or project), nor does it differentiate from siblings like 'create_map' or 'update_map_tile' that might involve map modifications. The description assumes context without stating it.

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