create_event

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, side effects, or constraints. It only provides a basic action statement and example, leaving the agent uninformed about important operational details.

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 short and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and the example adds clarity without significant bloat. It could be slightly more structured, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given 5 parameters (1 required) and no schema descriptions, the description only covers one parameter meaningfully. The existence of an output schema helps, but the tool definition remains incomplete for a creation action, lacking details on required fields and constraints.

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%, so the description must compensate. Only 'member_ids' is explained (via example), while the required 'title' and optional 'start_date', 'end_date', and 'description' are left undefined, providing insufficient parameter guidance.

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 'Create a group event for expense splitting' with a concrete example, making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_event_member, leaving some ambiguity.

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 description implicitly indicates usage for creating an event with participants via the 'member_ids' note, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_event_member or add_event_expense.

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