Create Event Type

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: the required 'event_types:write' scope and the confirm=true gate for the specific requested action, which the agent needs before invoking.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the confirm requirement and scope. No wasted text, though it is terse to the point of omitting usable guidance.

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 13-parameter non-idempotent write with nested objects, the description covers the confirm gate and required scope, which are the key invocation gates. It omits any differentiation from create_one_off_event_type and gives no hint about the required owner/name inside the payload, though the schema itself documents those.

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 all 13 parameters (including the nested payload object and the payload/payload_file/body-flag exclusivity) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-level beyond restating the confirm=true requirement, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create Event Type'), so the agent knows this is a creation operation. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling create_one_off_event_type, which is a closely related creation tool, so the agent gets no help distinguishing the two.

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 states a hard prerequisite (confirm=true) but gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions the sibling create_one_off_event_type as an alternative. The agent must infer from context which event-type creation tool to pick.

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