eventhouse_create

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

Annotations already signal a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds a valuable behavioral trait: the operation is long-running, which affects how the agent should treat the call and its result. It doesn't describe polling or follow-up, but it surpasses what the annotations alone provide.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence containing the essential verb, object, scope, and the long-running caveat. No filler or repetition of schema 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?

For a simple create call with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key invocation facts. The only gap is the lack of guidance on how to handle the long-running aspect, such as polling or checking the created eventhouse, which is useful but not critical.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the description doesn't need to re-explain them. It adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming the workspace context, matching the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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?

States a specific action ('Create'), a specific resource ('eventhouse'), and the location context ('in a workspace'), plus flags the operation as long-running. This distinguishes it from eventhouse_update/eventhouse_delete and from create tools for other resources.

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?

Clearly conveys the intended use: provisioning a new eventhouse in a specified workspace. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the exclusions are inferable from sibling names like eventhouse_update and eventhouse_delete.

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