Create Timeline Event

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) already indicate this is a write operation. The description adds that it 'returns the created object on success (HTTP 201)', which is helpful. It does not contradict annotations. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, error conditions, or behaviors beyond creation, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 four sentences long and front-loads the core purpose. It includes relevant API endpoint information without being overly verbose. The list of required parameters is somewhat redundant but does not significantly bloat the text. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description adequately states the action, success response, and endpoint. It lacks details about the returned object’s structure, error handling, or additional constraints. For a creation tool with good schema coverage, this is minimally complete but not thorough.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description redundantly lists all required parameters but does not add additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain parameter relationships or provide examples, so it offers no extra semantic value.

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 ('Create a timeline event') and the resource ('in a schedule'). It specifies the API endpoint and the exact resource being created. However, it does not differentiate this tool from other creation tools among the many sibling tools, such as create_submittal or create_rfi, which limits clarity for an agent choosing among alternatives.

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 explains when to use the tool ('Use this to create a new Scheduling records'), but it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or contextual exclusions. The implied usage is clear but lacks depth for an agent evaluating trade-offs.

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