create_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it appends an event and returns the persisted dict, but does not discuss side effects, idempotency, authorization needs, or what happens with the 'parent' parameter (e.g., replacing branch). Limited transparency 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 uses a docstring format with clear sections (Args, Returns). It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence contributes meaningful information. While not extremely short, it is appropriately sized for the number of parameters.

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 covers all parameters (two required) and explains the return value. However, it does not mention error conditions, file path conventions, or tag formatting rules. Given the complexity (6 params, no annotations), additional context would be beneficial but not strictly necessary.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds crucial meaning to each parameter: task is imperative title, summary describes what was done, reason is strongly encouraged for history, files are project-relative paths, tags are free-form labels, and parent indicates linear chain via id or null for new branch. This compensates effectively for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

Description opens with 'Append a new event to the project's timeline,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings (which are read/search operations) by focusing on creation of timeline 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?

The description implies usage is for adding events to a timeline, but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of siblings or any exclusions. Context is clear but lacks definitive guidance.

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