create_life_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 of behavioral disclosure. As a create/mutation tool, it should disclose whether this is a write operation requiring specific permissions, whether events are associated with a profile, or any side effects. The description provides none of this. It doesn't even mention that a profile_id may be needed for certain API key types, which is relevant behavioral context.

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 extremely short (one clause), which is efficient but crosses from conciseness into under-specification. There is no waste, but there's also virtually no informative content—the description adds nothing meaningful beyond the tool name itself.

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 tool with a nested data object containing 10 fields and 2 top-level parameters, a single-sentence description is inadequate. There's no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to compensate but doesn't. The complex type enum, date format, and auth requirements for profile_id are all undocumented in the description.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate, but it provides zero information about the data structure. The nested 'data' object has 10 properties (type, title, tags, impact, metadata, confidence, event_date, importance, description) and the description explains none of them. The important enum-like constraint on 'type' (turning_point/relocation/major_change/milestone) is only in the schema, not the description. profile_id's special auth behavior is entirely undocumented in the description.

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 'ライフイベントを新規作成' (create a new life event) uses a specific verb+resource, clearly indicating this creates a life event. However, it doesn't add meaning beyond what the tool name 'create_life_event' already conveys, and it doesn't distinguish from siblings like create_profile, create_persona, etc. The translation makes the purpose obvious though not enriched.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains many create_* tools (create_persona, create_episode, create_goal, etc.), and the description offers no differentiation or selection criteria. It doesn't explain when a 'life event' is the right entity to create versus other resource types.

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