swapcard_create_event_document

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds that the document is URL-based but does not disclose permissions, idempotency, error behavior, or any side effects beyond creating a new attachment.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the key purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

This create tool has no output schema or annotations, yet the description does not mention return values, validation constraints (e.g., URL format), or behavior when the event is missing. Like the update_drive example, it leaves important operational context unexplained.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters in detail. While 'URL-based' and 'to an event' hint at url and eventId, the meaning of name and description, and optionality versus requirements, are left to the schema names alone.

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 'Attach a new document (URL-based) to an event' clearly identifies the action, resource, and target. It distinguishes this from list/update/delete document siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the generic swapcard_create_document sibling.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like swapcard_create_document, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the event existing. Context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and brief description.

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