Create Webinar

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, potentially destructive open-world mutation. The description meaningfully adds upstream context the annotations cannot convey: the required token scope, the delegate_to_contact_permissions path, the mandatory confirm=true, and warnings that the call may share access, notify people, or incur provider charges. It does not describe return shape or rate limits, keeping it below 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the permission/confirm/side-effect notes follow in a compact block. The code-fenced permission list is slightly heavier than necessary, but every sentence carries information.

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 10-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, authorization, mutation confirmation, and external side effects, which is most of what an agent needs. It leaves return-value expectations unaddressed, but the schema-rich parameters carry the rest.

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% and the nested payload repeats the top-level fields with their own descriptions, so the schema fully documents parameters like scheduled_for, time_zone, and event_duration. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so 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?

States a specific verb (Creates) and resource (webinar), so an agent immediately knows the outcome. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from the other create_* tools in the cluster (create_channel, create_brand, create_folder), so it stops short of a 5.

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 preconditions (token permission, confirm=true) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as create_channel_episode or the update/webinar siblings. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.

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