hs4.events.run

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the execution is synchronous, what side effects occur, or any error conditions. The presence of 'dryRun' and 'confirm' fields hints at mutation but is not explained in the description.

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 one sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error handling, or what happens after the event runs, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool 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?

The description adds meaning by explaining that 'id' alone or 'group+name' can be used, which is not explicit in the schema. Schema coverage is moderate (57%), and the description compensates partially for the parameters without descriptions.

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 verb 'run' and resource 'HS4 event', and specifies two identification methods (by id or by group+name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hs4.events.list or hs4.events.get.

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 when to use it (to run an event) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like hs4.intent.event_run_by_name (which is a different invocation approach).

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