create_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about what happens on success (returned ID?), permission requirements, default trigger behavior, or whether the created event is immediately active or enabled, which matters 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and location constraint come first. It is efficient, though minimal enough that no additional structure or emphasis is present.

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?

With a fully documented 8-parameter schema and no output schema, the main remaining burden is behavioral and usage context, which the description does not supply. It is adequate to identify the operation but incomplete for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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%, including a documented trigger enum mapping (0=Action Button ... 4=Parallel) and coordinate constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes position and map, adding no meaning beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a new event') plus its scope ('on a map at the specified position'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like add_event_commands or update_event, leaving the boundary between creation and modification implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as add_event_commands for populating an existing event or update_event for changing one. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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