create_dataset_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but offers no details on permissions, side effects, idempotency, or response format. For a tool that likely modifies system state, this lack of transparency is inadequate and could lead to misuse.

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?

While concise with only two words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description lacks necessary detail and structure—it doesn't front-load key information or provide any context. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide enough value to justify their inclusion without expansion.

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?

Given the tool's likely complexity (a creation/mutation operation with two parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond its name, how to use it, what parameters mean, or what to expect in return. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 neither parameter ('dataset_uri', 'extra') is documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what a 'dataset_uri' is, its format, or what 'extra' data might be used for. With two parameters and zero coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters completely unexplained.

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 'Create dataset event' is a tautology that restates the tool name without elaboration. It provides a basic verb ('Create') and resource ('dataset event'), but lacks specificity about what a 'dataset event' is or what creation entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_connection' or 'create_variable' beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'get_dataset_events' and 'delete_dataset_queued_events', there's no indication of how this tool fits into workflows or when it's appropriate to invoke it.

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