Fill Event Template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing. An agent cannot tell whether this mutates stored data, whether it requires an existing template, whether existing content is overwritten, or what permissions are needed.

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?

It is a single short phrase, so nothing is bloated, but this reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose, behavior, or parameters to earn its place.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the definition is completely inadequate. Nothing tells the agent what the tool returns or how 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 0% across four parameters (id, theme, title, project_id), and the description mentions none of them. The agent must guess the meaning of each field, particularly theme versus title, with no compensating text.

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?

"填充事件写作模板" translates to "fill event writing template," which merely restates the tool name fill_event_template. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like register_event or link_event_to_scene, nor does it clarify what "filling" a template means in practice.

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 alternatives such as register_event, update_event, or link_event_to_scene. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context of any kind.

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