eventstream_create

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

The annotations only indicate that this is a non-readonly, non-destructive operation. The description adds a meaningful behavioral fact: the operation is long-running, which an agent should account for when invoking it and interpreting the result. It does not detail polling or timeout behavior, but the long-running qualifier is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 one compact sentence that conveys the action, target, scope, and long-running nature without filler. It is front-loaded and every element 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?

For a create operation with only three simple, fully described parameters, the description covers the essential invocation context. The only notable gap is the lack of return-value guidance, but since there is no output schema and the long-running qualifier sets expectations, this is a minor omission.

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%, with each parameter already documented: workspaceId, displayName, and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the semantic burden; this matches the baseline score of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('eventstream'), and a scope ('in a workspace'), so an agent can clearly tell what the tool does. It also adds a behavioral qualifier ('long-running operation') that distinguishes it from simple read tools like eventstream_list or eventstream_get.

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 intended use case — creating a new eventstream — is implied by the verb and object, so an agent can infer when to call this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like eventstream_update, so the usage guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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