Manage Events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that removing an event requires user confirmation and clarifies that update only changes the schema. However, it omits side effects (e.g., impact on existing automations), error conditions, or response format, which are important for a mutation-capable tool with no annotation support.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Purpose, Actions, Workflow, Schema types) and uses concise bullets. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every section contributes useful context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making scanning easy.

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 multi-action tool with 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description delivers a solid understanding: what events are, what each action does, when to use the tool, and possible schema types. It lacks some details like error handling or return values, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and use the tool correctly in most cases.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minor value by mapping actions to the parameters they use (e.g., create uses name and schema; list uses after, before, limit), but it does not provide new semantic details beyond the schema. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Create, list, get, update, or remove event definitions in Resend,' which uses specific verbs and clearly identifies the resource. It further distinguishes the tool by explaining events are named triggers that start automations, setting it apart from sibling tools like create-automation or send-event.

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 provides a clear workflow ('manage-events (create) → create-automation → send-event') that indicates when this tool is used relative to other tools. It also explains each action's purpose. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools to use instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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