create-event-type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new event type' and does not mention side effects, whether creation is idempotent, permission requirements, slug uniqueness, or what happens on conflicting data. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating operation.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple create operation, though it could still have included behavioral caveats without becoming verbose.

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 schema provides full parameter documentation, so the description does not need to enumerate fields. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal and misses useful context such as return value, confirmation behavior, and potential error conditions. It is minimally viable but not rich.

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?

The input schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to because schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('event type'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from update-event-type or delete-event-type, but the word 'new' signals it is for creation, which adequately separates it from sibling tools.

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?

Usage context is only implied: an agent can infer this tool is for creating a new event type rather than updating or deleting an existing one. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any mention of prerequisites or preconditions.

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