evite_create_event

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint false, the description discloses that without confirm:true the tool returns a dry-run preview and sends nothing, and critically notes that the API may return a 500 despite successful creation. This is valuable behavioral context that the annotations don't provide.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds essential information: required fields, confirm gating, and error handling. No filler or redundancy.

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 covers the draft behavior, confirm gate, and the unusual 500 error handling, which is critical for agents. However, it does not specify the return payload for a successful create or describe what the dry-run preview includes, leaving some ambiguity given there's no output schema.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including confirm, required fields, and datetime formats. The description restates required params and confirm-gating but adds no new information beyond what the schema already describes, so it meets the baseline.

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?

Description opens with 'Create an Evite event (as a draft)' – a specific verb and resource, immediately clarifying the tool's role. The 'as a draft' qualification distinguishes it from sending or updating events, so the purpose is clear and differentiated.

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 the confirm-gated workflow (dry-run vs. actual creation) and instructs users not to retry on the 500 error but instead re-list drafts. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like 'send' or 'update_event' for when to use them, so it's clear context but not full when/when-not guidance.

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