fluig_process_event_set

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

Discloses key behaviors: it bypasses server-side validation, does not create a new version, keeps a backup of the previous source, and requires confirm to be true. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and does so well.

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 very concise: one sentence with three clear statements, front-loaded with deprecation and purpose. No unnecessary words.

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?

Covers deprecation, alternative, key behavioral traits. However, does not describe return values or error conditions, which would be helpful especially with no output schema. Still fairly complete for a deprecated tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond the schema descriptions, which are brief but present.

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 it patches a process event in the event_proces table, specifying it is a write operation. It distinguishes from the alternative fluig_process_event_set_xml by noting it bypasses validation and does not create a new version.

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?

Explicitly marks as deprecated and recommends fluig_process_event_set_xml as the preferred alternative, giving clear when-not-to-use guidance. This is sufficient for a deprecated tool.

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