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

Beyond the annotations (which only say it writes, is non-idempotent, non-destructive and open-world), it discloses the required scope `content:write`, the fact that the first call is side-effect free, that arguments are validated as a real change would be with unknown fields refused by name, and that a summary plus confirm_token are returned. These are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot get from the structured fields and are consistent with the non-idempotent/no-destructive annotations.

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-loaded with purpose, scope, and the two-call contract; no sentence is filler. The telegraphic fragments ("Two calls.", "Needs `content:write`.") are efficient but slightly clipped, costing a little readability.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers authorization, the confirmation protocol, and the first call's return values. It leaves unstated what the second (publishing) call returns and whether publishing is reversible, which the caller may still want to know.

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 50% (only confirm_token is documented). The description compensates by explaining the token's lifecycle (omitted on the first call, echoed back on the second with the same arguments) and clarifies that although additionalProperties is true, fields the tool does not take are refused by name.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Publish a live event") and the two-phase confirm flow makes it distinguishable from the lookalike siblings preview_live_event and update_live_event. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It gives a concrete procedure: call once, show the summary to the person, and only re-call after they agree. It lacks when-not guidance, e.g. how this differs from preview_live_event (a dry run without publishing) or unpublish_live_event/archive_live_event, which an agent must pick between.

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