app_events_create_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about this being a mutating write, required permissions, rate limits, or what the response contains. Pointing at an external OpenAPI schema is not behavioral context in the definition 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 definition is short but wasteful: 'POST /v1/appEvents (POST /v1/appEvents)' redundantly repeats the same route. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than efficient structuring, with no front-loaded statement of purpose.

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 create/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested JSON:API envelope body, the description is grossly incomplete. It defers everything to an external OpenAPI spec and provides no information an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% for the single 'body' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's note about the 'full JSON:API envelope' and the AppEventCreateRequest shape adds a small amount of orientation but largely duplicates the schema's own pointer.

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 is essentially a restatement of the HTTP route ('POST /v1/appEvents') and only conveys the operation through the tool name. It never translates the endpoint into a plain-language statement like 'create an App Event', leaving an agent to infer the resource from the name rather than the description.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as app_events_get_instance, app_events_update_instance, app_events_delete_instance, or app_events_localizations. An agent gets no context on prerequisites or conditions for creating an event.

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