add_conditional_branch

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a conditional branch to an event', which is insufficient. It does not mention side effects (e.g., modification of event structure), required permissions, reversible nature, or how existing branches are affected. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect usage.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous words, achieving conciseness. However, it is under-specified and lacks structure (e.g., sections for usage, examples). While brief, it omits critical information, so it scores at the midpoint.

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 the tool's complexity—7 parameters including a nested condition object, and no output schema—the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the function's purpose in the broader event system, how to construct the condition, or what the result looks like. Sibling tools are numerous, and this description does not help the agent choose correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the tool description adds no meaning to parameters. The condition object has descriptions for its subfields, but top-level parameters like mapId, eventId, projectPath, etc., are undocumented. The description does not explain parameter roles or relationships, forcing the agent to rely solely on names.

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 tool's action: 'Add a conditional branch to an event'. It uses a specific verb and identifies the resource, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_choice or add_loop, which also add elements to events, missing a chance to clarify its unique role.

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, such as when to add a conditional branch instead of a choice or loop. There are no prerequisites, context hints, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision support.

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