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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the first call is a no-op validation, unknown fields are refused by name, it returns a summary and confirm_token, and the second call must use the same arguments plus the token.

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?

Front-loads the action, permission, and two-call flow in a compact paragraph with no filler. Every sentence contributes operational detail.

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?

Covers permission, validation behavior, confirmation UX, and the token flow, which is the critical complexity for this tool. It does not state what the second call returns, and no output schema exists to fill that gap, so a small completeness gap remains.

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 schema has only 50% description coverage; confirm_token is documented in the schema, while title is undocumented. The description clarifies the confirm_token lifecycle across the two calls, but adds no meaning for title's format or constraints.

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 and resource ('Create a live event'), making the action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings such as preview_live_event or update_live_event, so an agent must rely on the name for that distinction.

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?

Gives the required scope ('content:write') and a precise two-call confirmation workflow, including showing the summary to the person before confirming. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the invocation context is clear.

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