Place or update an event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether moving an event onto an occupied cell overwrites, what happens to unspecified fields on update, permission requirements, or reversibility. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that covers both modes with zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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?

A 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and near-zero schema description coverage gets only one sentence. Return value, error behavior, note semantics, and the overwrite question are all unaddressed.

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 coverage is only 17% (just id), so the description must compensate. It does map x/y to 'cell', id to 'move', and name to 'rename', but leaves note and mapId unexplained and gives no format or constraint detail for any of them.

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+resource with dual-mode scope: 'Create an event at a cell, or move and rename an existing one by id.' That distinguishes it from remove_event, copy_event, and find_events. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Implies when each mode applies via the 'omit id to create' semantics and the schema's id description, but never names alternatives (e.g., copy_event, set_event_page) or states prerequisites like whether the map must be loaded. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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