pocketsmith_create_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the event automatically generates transactions, any side effects, permission requirements, or what happens upon creation. The single sentence lacks depth beyond the action itself.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. However, it sacrifices completeness; a slightly longer description could improve clarity without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool creates events (recurring transactions) and has no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how events are used, or any prerequisites (e.g., scenario must exist). More context is needed for effective agent usage.

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% with inline descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles semantics adequately.

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 'Create a new event (recurring transaction)' uses a specific verb (create) and resource (event), and immediately clarifies that events represent recurring transactions. This distinguishes it from siblings like pocketsmith_create_transaction, making purpose clear.

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 that this tool is for creating recurring transactions, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., when to use create_transaction for one-off transactions or list_events for viewing). The context is inferential but not directly stated.

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