Create Webinar

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

Beyond the annotations (which already flag destructive=true and openWorld=true), the description adds real behavioral context: the required token scope, delegation behavior via all:delegate_to_contact_permissions, the confirm=true gate, and side-effect warnings ('may share access, notify people or incur provider charges'). Idempotency and concrete return behavior are not covered, so it stops short of a 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the permission/side-effect details follow in a clearly separated section. It is somewhat verbose, especially the multi-line permission block, but the content is relevant and earns its place.

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 mutation with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the important non-schema concerns: auth scope, the confirm gate, and charge/notification side effects. Return values need not be explained without an output schema, and parameter detail is fully carried by the schema.

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 every parameter including the nested payload is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail (e.g., the payload vs payload_file vs body-flag mutual exclusivity), 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Creates a new webinar.' That cleanly identifies it among the many webinar siblings (get_webinar, update_webinar, delete_webinar). However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 (required token permissions, confirm=true) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as update_webinar or create_webinar_registration. There are no exclusions or context cues for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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