common-new-item-workflow-event-by-path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states it 'creates' (implying a write/mutation), but doesn't disclose permissions required, side effects (e.g., history persistence), error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient for safe agent use.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place by specifying the operation, target, and key identifier (path).

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'creates' entails (e.g., success/failure responses, history entry format), behavioral constraints, or error handling. Given the complexity (6 parameters, write operation), more context is needed for safe agent invocation.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'path' is required. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the semantic lifting.

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 action ('Creates a new entry') and the target ('workflow history for a Sitecore item by its path'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'common-get-item-workflow-event-by-path' (which retrieves rather than creates) and 'common-invoke-workflow-by-path' (which triggers workflow transitions rather than logging history). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'common-new-item-workflow-event-by-id' (the ID-based variant), missing full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., item existence, workflow states), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'common-invoke-workflow-by-path' for actual workflow transitions. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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