event_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the event is created in a specific folder (master or event://) and that folder is optional, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., what happens if event already exists, whether it overwrites, if owner permissions are needed), creation process details, or return values. It doesn't describe any behavioral traits beyond basic creation.

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 description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by an Args section. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the Args section is minimal. No waste, but could be slightly more detailed within the same structure.

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?

The tool is a creation (write) operation with no annotations and no output schema. It has only 2 parameters, but the description only partially explains them. It doesn't specify what happens on success/failure, whether creation is idempotent, or any prerequisites. For a simple create tool, it should at least disclose side effects and possibly success behavior, which it lacks.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description provides useful semantics for both parameters: name (with examples 'Hit', 'UI/Hover') and folder (optional event:// path or {guid}). This adds value beyond the raw schema, which only lists types. However, it doesn't explain constraints on naming, folder format nuances, or default behavior when folder is null.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create an event in the master event folder (or an event:// folder).' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('event'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the target location (master event folder or event:// folder). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like event_delete or event_set_name, but the action is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (to create an event), but provides no exclusions or alternatives. It doesn't explicitly say not to use other tools or provide context on when an event might already exist or require update via event_set_name. It gives a basic usage context with the folder parameter but lacks explicit guidance on choosing between this and related tools like sound_create or audio_import.

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