misp_create_event

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool does not publish, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it omits other traits like authentication requirements or rate limits, making it minimally adequate.

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 concise with only two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a usage guideline, making it well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simplicity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough to understand the tool's function and key behavior. It could mention return values or error conditions, but it's sufficient for a create operation.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each parameter having clear descriptions (e.g., info, distribution). The tool description adds no extra parameter information, so the baseline score 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 clearly states 'Create a new MISP event' with a specific verb and resource, and explains its purpose for documenting incidents or threat intelligence. It also distinguishes itself from misp_publish_event, which is a sibling tool.

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 explicit guidance by stating 'Does not publish - use misp_publish_event separately,' telling the agent when not to use this tool and suggesting an alternative. However, it does not cover when to use it versus other siblings like misp_add_attribute.

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