create_key_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions valid counting_method values, but does not describe side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, error behavior, or what happens if the event is already a key event.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential parameter information. No redundant words or filler, making it highly concise 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?

For a simple create operation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and a key parameter, but omits details like return value, error handling, and permissions. Additional context would be beneficial for complete understanding.

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 0%, and the description adds value by enumerating allowed values for counting_method. The other parameters (property_id, event_name) are self-explanatory from their names and required status, but no additional semantics are given for them.

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 ('Mark an event as a key event') and the resource ('key event'), with 'conversion' providing context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_key_events by indicating a creation/marking operation.

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 use for marking conversion events, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'conversion' hint gives some context, but lacks clear 'use when' guidance.

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