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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the required `content:write` scope, the dry-run first call that mutates nothing, that unknown fields are rejected by name, and that the first response carries a summary plus confirm_token. This is exactly the operational context the schema and annotations cannot express.

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, then auth, then the two-step protocol; no filler sentences and each clause carries information. The phrase "checks the arguments as the change would" is slightly dense and could be plainer, but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers authorization, the confirmation protocol, and the first call's return shape. It does not say what the second, committing call returns or how partial failures should be interpreted, which is the main residual gap.

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?

`confirm_token` is fully specified: omit on the first call, pass back the token returned by the first call on the second call with identical arguments. The description also explains the pass-through behavior for arbitrary change fields (unknown fields refused by name), which the schema's `additionalProperties: true` leaves ambiguous. `id` is never characterized as a live-event identifier, keeping it off a 5.

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?

"Change a live event" gives a specific verb and resource, and the surrounding text makes clear this is a mutation of an existing event rather than creation or retrieval, which separates it from create_live_event / get_live_event. It never names a sibling explicitly (e.g. how it differs from preview_live_event, publish_live_event, or archive_live_event), so it stops short of a 5.

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 unusually explicit calling guidance: the two-call pattern, that the first call is a no-op validation, and that the summary must be shown to the person before the second call is made. What it lacks is routing guidance toward sibling tools for adjacent operations (view, publish, archive), so the agent must infer which live-event tool handles what.

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