create_event

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with explicit role restrictions and the requirement to confirm details before creating. This goes beyond the annotations by adding authorization and user-consent expectations.

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?

Three short, purposeful segments: role, operation type, and operational guardrail. No filler, and the key warning is front-loaded.

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?

The description adequately covers the risk profile (write operation, confirmation needed) for a creation tool that has an output schema and complete parameter docs. It doesn't mention the default school_slug behavior, but that is documented in the input schema.

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 every parameter is already documented. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific context, which keeps this at the baseline.

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 opens with 'ADMIN: Creates a school event,' which clearly identifies both the action and the resource. It differentiates well from siblings like update_event (modify) and register_event (attendee sign-up) even without naming them explicitly.

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 establishes clear usage context: requires pac_cordinator or event_cordinator role, must be a WRITE operation, and must not happen without explicit user request. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when to prefer update_event over create_event.

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