regenerate_event_description

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Ask... to regenerate' without revealing whether the existing description is overwritten, whether it can fail (e.g., if GenAI is disabled), or if there are latency/cost implications. The 'force' parameter in the schema hints at some behavior, but the description itself is silent.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant or unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema and output schema cover parameter details and return values, so the description does not need to repeat them. However, the lack of usage guidelines and behavioral transparency leaves noticeable context gaps, making it minimally adequate but incomplete for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond noting the GenAI provider, which is only loosely related to the 'source' parameter and not explicitly explained.

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's action: 'Ask Frigate's GenAI provider to regenerate the event description.' This specifies the verb (regenerate), resource (event description), and mechanism (GenAI provider), distinguishing it from siblings like set_event_description (manual setting) and get_event (retrieval).

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 usage when an AI-generated description is desired, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like set_event_description, nor any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., GenAI being enabled). This is merely implied usage rather than explicit direction.

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