Create a new custom event (reusable script)

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

The description discloses that the script body starts empty and that patch_script is needed to populate it. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention potential side effects (e.g., file creation on disk), permissions required, or reversibility, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and provides essential context without any filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 core behavior (creation, empty body) and hints at the next step (patch_script). It lacks details on error handling (e.g., duplicate names) or return values, but given the simple nature of a create tool and the absence of an output schema, it is largely complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'name' (seeds slug), 'symbol' (override GBVM), and 'description' (GUI display). No additional guidance is offered.

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 tool creates a new script resource file under project/scripts/ and specifies that custom events are reusable scripts called from scenes, actors, or triggers. The verb 'create' and resource 'custom event' are specific, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like delete_custom_event or patch_script.

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 provides explicit context: custom events are reusable scripts, and the script body starts empty, with guidance to use patch_script to populate it. It implies the tool is for creating the initial file, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it, missing exclusions.

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