misp_add_event

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states a write operation ('Create') but omits behavioral details like idempotency, confirmation, return value, or prerequisites (authentication, permission). Minimal disclosure beyond the obvious.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose. Every word earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a creation tool with well-described schema, but lacks output details (e.g., event ID returned) and error handling context. Not fully complete given the absence of output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 6 parameters. Description adds a high-level summary ('attributes, tags, threat level') but no additional semantic meaning or usage nuance beyond schema.

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 'Create' and the resource 'MISP event', with a specific source context 'from NIDS findings' and purpose 'to share threat intelligence'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like misp_search_iocs or suricata_query_alerts.

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?

Implies usage when NIDS findings are available, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. Lacks direct guidance for choosing between this and thehive_create_alert or other creation tools.

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