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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds material context the agent cannot infer: votes are retained, the public link signals organizer takedown, no email is sent, and write permission is required. This meaningfully reframes 'destructive' as recoverable and silent, which is exactly the beyond-annotations value expected.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action, then stacks the consequences and the reversal in descending priority. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the identity, reversibility, side effects, and permission requirement. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single event_id is already documented with the draft_ vs live-id distinction, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Archives a live event') and immediately disambiguates by equating it to the dashboard's 'Delete', which separates it from siblings like discard_draft and update_event. An agent knows what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Names the reversal path ('Reversible with restore_event') and implicitly excludes drafts via the discard_draft reference, giving clear selection context. It stops short of an explicit when/when-not statement with alternatives beyond restore_event, so it falls 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.