set_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's contribution is the upsert framing ('Create or update'), which tells the agent this is not strictly a create, but it omits any mention of overwrite risk when index targets an existing fact.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with parenthetical examples that earn their place by mapping natural-language facts to the tag parameter. No filler, though a second sentence clarifying the create-vs-update distinction would not have been waste.

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 an output schema present and 88% schema coverage, the agent does not need return-value documentation. The description adequately conveys the core operation, though the update-via-index mechanics and the GEDCOM file resolution are left entirely to the 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 coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents id, tag, date, type, index, and value thoroughly. The description only echoes tag semantics with examples ('birth date, add an occupation') and adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource ('Create or update an event/fact on an individual or family') with concrete examples (birth date, occupation). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like remove_event, update_individual, or add_family, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Examples ('set a birth date, add an occupation') imply intent, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no routing to alternatives such as remove_event for deletion or add_individual for the person record itself.

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