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

Adds context about permission checks and free-tier restrictions beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or error behavior. Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) are not contradicted but the description could be more transparent about operational traits.

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 a single paragraph with no wasted words, but the procedural steps (check permissions, call access tool, show warnings) could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). It is appropriately sized and front-loads the main purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (32 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It thoroughly covers prerequisites but omits parameter explanations, return value behavior, and operational details like field constraints or update semantics.

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% with 32 parameters, and the description provides no details on individual parameters. It only vaguely mentions 'editable event fields', leaving the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone, some of which are complex objects without explanation.

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 it updates editable fields for an event in a community managed by the authenticated user. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_session or update_community by specifying the resource (event) and context (community).

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?

Explicitly instructs to check business permissions, call check_business_tool_access, show grace-period warnings and resubscribe links, and never proceed when blocked. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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