Manage Events

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate the safety profile. But it adds no behavioral context: it does not explain which actions have side effects, what subscribing creates, whether replay is safe to repeat, or any auth/persistence/rate-limit implications.

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 tightly written sentences with the operation list front-loaded and no wasted wording. The brief title repetition is negligible and does not hinder clarity.

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 12-parameter, multi-operation tool with no output schema and very low schema description coverage, two sentences are far from complete. The description does not explain the parameters, operation-specific conditions, return behavior, or side effects, leaving an agent unable to invoke it correctly without guessing.

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 8% across 12 parameters. The description only points to the `action` field and repeats the three operation names, leaving `limit`, `filters`, `clientId`, `endpoint`, `eventType`, `expiresAt`, `transport`, timestamps, and resource filters undocumented in both schema and 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 enumerates three concrete event operations (subscribe, get recent, replay) and identifies the resource as project events, so the purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the many sibling manage_* tools, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

It states that the `action` field selects the operation, and lists the three operations, which implies how to invoke it. However, it gives no guidance on when to use subscribe versus get_recent versus replay, and names no alternatives or exclusions.

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