create_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action ('manually create') and the purpose, but omits any side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens to the created event (e.g., whether it triggers recording or is stored indefinitely). The description does not go beyond a high-level mutation statement, leaving significant behavioral unknowns.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted wording. It is highly concise while still conveying the tool's primary use case.

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?

Given the simple create operation and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the manual override context and the main use case. However, in the context of many sibling event-related tools, it could have clarified how this event differs from those created by detection or how it relates to tools like end_event or retain_event. Minor gap, but overall sufficient.

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 covers 100% of the 6 parameters with descriptions, so the schema already provides detailed parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase 'marking a time period' loosely relates to duration but doesn't add concrete semantics.

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 verb and resource: 'Manually create an event on a camera.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing 'manually' and the use case of marking a time period as notable even without automatic detection. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from event retrieval/deletion tools.

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 provides a clear context for use: 'Useful for marking a time period as notable even if Frigate didn't detect anything automatically.' This indicates when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The guidance is adequate for a create operation.

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