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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it declares the `content:write` scope, discloses a two-call confirm-token protocol, and clarifies that the first call is non-mutating despite readOnlyHint=false. It also explains that unknown fields are rejected by name, which tells the agent how validation failures surface.

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 purpose, then permission, then the call protocol in four short sentences with no filler. The telegraphic phrasing ('Two calls. The first changes nothing…') is dense but still readable and ordered the way the agent must act.

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 the full invocation flow and what the first call returns (summary plus confirm_token), which is essential with no output schema. It leaves implicit what the second call returns — presumably the preview link — but the name and title make that inferable.

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 only 50% (the `id` property is undocumented), but the description carries the critical semantics: confirm_token is omitted on the first call and echoed from the first response on the second. It implies `id` identifies the draft event, though it never says so explicitly.

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 plus a scope qualifier: a preview link for a *draft* live event. That scope alone separates it from get_live_event, publish_live_event, and update_live_event, which operate on events generally, so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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 clear procedural when-to-use guidance: call it for a preview link on a draft, show the returned summary to the person, and only re-call after agreement. It does not explicitly exclude or name sibling alternatives, which keeps it short of a 5.

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