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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, which is consistent. Description adds the confirm parameter requirement and business permission context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like making the event publicly visible or triggering notifications.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by actionable prerequisites. At four sentences, it is concise and well-structured. No extraneous content, though it could be slightly shorter.

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?

While the description covers prerequisites and constraints, it omits details about return values, success/failure indicators, and parameter meanings (especially communityId and eventId). Given the destructive nature and no output schema, more completeness is expected.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the confirm parameter (must be 'PUBLISH') but does not elaborate on eventId or communityId. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but additional context is missing.

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 clearly states 'Publish an event' with the specific requirement that 'confirm set to PUBLISH'. This uniquely identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from related siblings like unpublish_event.

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?

Description provides explicit guidance: check permissions, note that FREE businesses cannot use, call check_business_tool_access first, show warnings and resubscribe link, and never proceed when access is blocked. This fully informs when and how to use.

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