Configure an event page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavior: it creates the page if absent. It also decodes trigger and priorityType values. But it says nothing about permissions, return value, or whether unset properties are preserved or reset, which matters for a 14-parameter mutator.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by the upsert caveat and the enum legends. No filler. Slightly dense with value lists but each 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 mutation tool with 14 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. Movement-related parameters (moveType/moveSpeed/moveFrequency) and the conditions object are unaddressed, leaving an agent to guess at a substantial portion of the call.

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 14% across 14 parameters. The description documents two of them (trigger, priorityType) with their value meanings, but leaves moveType, moveSpeed, moveFrequency, through, directionFix, walkAnime, stepAnime, the image sub-object, and the conditions semantics entirely to an undocumented schema. Partial compensation for a large gap.

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 (Set) and resource (an event page) and enumerates the configurable aspects: graphic, trigger, priority, movement, conditions. This clearly distinguishes it from place_event/remove_event/copy_event, though it doesn't explicitly say how it relates to those siblings. Strong but not sibling-routing.

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 only contextual guidance is 'Adds the page when it does not exist yet,' which is an upsert behavior note rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no mention of when to prefer this over add_commands/set_commands, prerequisites (does the event need to exist first?), or exclusions.

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