create_em_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Notify') and endpoint, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, required authentication, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate submissions. The term 'Notify' is vague about whether it creates persistent records or just logs events.

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?

Single sentence with a clear verb and resource, followed by the HTTP path. No filler words. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain return values or error behavior. With nested objects and zero annotation coverage, an agent would benefit from knowing prerequisites or confirmation behavior. However, the schema is well-documented, so the main gap is usage context rather than data shape.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters including the emEvents array and its nested fields. The description adds little beyond a high-level list of event types in prose, which largely maps to the 'type' enum in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: 'Notify Follow Up Boss' and lists the event types. Includes the HTTP endpoint (POST /emEvents), which disambiguates it from siblings like create_event and create_em_campaign.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_event or list_em_events. The description only states the action and endpoint, leaving the agent to infer from tool names and schema. No exclusions or alternative references.

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