submit_event_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and goes well beyond basics. It discloses concrete validation rules (minimum word count, honest readingTime, no first-person, no hallucinated URLs) and states the outcome: saved to the event_details collection with automatic versioning. This is substantial behavioral context, though it omits failure handling or return specifics.

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 concise and well-structured: a single clear opening sentence followed by a second sentence that adds relevant validation and storage details. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague filler.

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 existence of an output schema (which covers return values) and only two well-documented parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It conveys the purpose, validation process, storage target, and versioning behavior. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., event must exist) but the schema's required event_id covers that. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning—mainly that details_json is AI-generated and validated—but does not explain syntax or additional constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('AI-generated event details') with the additional scope of validation and storage. It distinguishes itself from sibling submit tools by explicitly mentioning event details and quality checks, which differentiates it from submit_contest_details or submit_structured_records.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when submitting AI-generated event details for validation and storage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as comparing with submit_structured_events. This is clear but lacks exclusions, matching a 4.

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