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

Goes well past the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by naming the collateral damage ('any votes on that day go with it'), the hard constraints (confirmed date can't be removed, at least one date must remain), the draft exception, the side-effect guarantee ('Never mails anyone'), and the required write permission.

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 operation and then the constraints in priority order; the semicolon clauses all earn their place. Slightly packed, but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the destructive side effects, invariants, permission requirement, and draft/live branching — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 100% and both params document their own format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates that event_id accepts a draft_ or live id and that dates are ISO days, adding little beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Takes dates off a draft ... or a live event') and names the two entity types it operates on. An agent can immediately separate it from add_dates and set_date_time 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 conditional context: draft vs live event behave differently, and it notes that send_invites refuses a dateless draft, implying the follow-on workflow. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or an exclusion ('use X instead when...'), so it stops short of 5.

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