luma_create_event_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavior: no posts occur until confirmation. However, it does not mention other traits like what the tool returns, error handling, or prerequisites. The output schema exists but is not referenced. The description is minimally adequate for a non-destructive draft 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 consists of two short sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second clarifies the behavior. It is extremely concise with no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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 is minimal but covers the essential distinction from the confirm sibling. Given the complexity (11 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, one might expect more context about the expected output or how to proceed after drafting. However, for a simple staging tool, it is reasonably complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema already documents all parameters, no further information is necessary, but the description could have highlighted key required fields (name, start_at, timezone).

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 tool's purpose: 'Stage an event for creation.' The verb 'stage' is specific, and the resource 'event' is clear. It distinguishes from the sibling 'luma_create_event_confirm', which actually posts the event. The phrase 'Nothing posts to Luma until confirm' reinforces the draft nature.

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 the usage context: it's for drafting an event before confirmation. It mentions that nothing is posted until confirm, which guides the agent to use a two-step workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'luma_update_event_draft' or 'luma_cancel_draft'.

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