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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the crucial side-effect boundary (nothing on the event is changed, nothing is arranged or approved), two named error semantics (RATE_LIMITED, BAD_NOTE), and the auth requirement of a personal connector token. This is exactly the context the destructiveHint=false / readOnlyHint=false combination cannot convey.

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?

Caps-led sentences front-load the purpose, then the when-to-use, then the no-side-effect warning and error codes, which is a sensible priority order. Nothing is redundant, though the all-caps emphasis across nearly every sentence is slightly heavier than needed.

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 three-required-parameter write tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, trigger, side effects, auth, and failure modes. The only minor gap is whether repeated identical calls create duplicate requests for the hosts, which is implied by RATE_LIMITED but never stated.

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 100%, so note length limits, the category enum, and eventIdOrName are already documented; baseline is 3. The description's example phrases clarify what a note should contain, but it adds no syntax or lookup guidance for eventIdOrName beyond what the schema states.

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?

"A GUEST ASKS THE HOSTS FOR SOMETHING" plus the specification that it files a need or question for the hosts of a wedding or personal event is a precise verb+resource+actor. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like event_requests or event_guest_requests, which read the host-side list rather than file a new ask.

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 states the triggering condition concretely ("when somebody wants to tell the hosts ... about a need or a question") and gives two example utterances that map directly to call situations. It also draws a boundary on what to say afterwards, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative for viewing or answering requests.

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