create_match_event

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

The description discloses the core actions (create and send email) but does not mention permissions, reversibility, error behavior, or what the match event constitutes. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and leaves side effects under-specified.

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 concise at one sentence and front-loaded with the primary verb 'create.' However, the phrase 'send to the mail of the recipient' is awkward and slightly ambiguous, preventing a perfect score.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not clarify what a match event is, what the email contains, or what happens on success or failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding when and how to invoke the tool.

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 input schema fully describes all three parameters (favoriteTeam, recipientEmail, minutesRemaining) with descriptions like 'used when the client can't render a form.' The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a match event and sends it to the recipient's email. The verb 'create' and resource 'match event' are specific, though the exact meaning of 'match event' is somewhat ambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for creating and emailing a match event but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied.

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