add_event_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool adds a command but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a mutation (likely yes, given 'add'), what permissions are needed, if it modifies existing project files, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with 6 required parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with helpful examples in parentheses. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse while conveying essential information.

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 complexity (6 required parameters for modifying game events), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error handling, project modification implications, or how it integrates with sibling tools like 'read_map' or 'update_database'. For a mutation tool in a game development context, more behavioral and contextual information is needed.

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%, providing clear documentation for all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by giving examples of command codes (101, 201, 122) which slightly enhance understanding, but doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage context. With high schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work.

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 a command') and target resource ('to an event page'), with specific examples of command types (show text, transfer player). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_event' or 'update_map_tile' by focusing on event page commands rather than creating events or modifying maps. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible command-related tools that might exist.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing event page), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'update_database' or 'implement_scenario' that might handle similar game logic modifications. Usage context is implied through the examples but not explicitly stated.

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