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

Beyond the annotations' destructive/idempotent hints, the description discloses non-obvious side effects: on a live event the guests' votes are removed with them, nobody is notified because the person is no longer being asked anything, and the organizer's row is protected. It also states the write-permission requirement, which the annotations do not 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?

The core action and its two target forms are front-loaded, and every clause (votes, no mail, organizer protection, permission) carries information. It is a single dense sentence with em-dash parentheticals, which is efficient but slightly harder to scan than short separate statements.

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 already covers target types, identifier sources, side effects, notification behavior, protected rows, and the permission requirement. Nothing material for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that guests are identified by the participant_id that get_event reports (or by email), and that event_id accepts either a draft_ id or a live event id. That provenance guidance goes beyond the schema text.

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 names a specific verb+resource (remove guests) and immediately scopes it to the two target types (a draft_ id or a live event), distinguishing it from siblings like add_guests, remove_dates, and update_guest. An agent can tell what this does and on which entity 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?

It gives clear conditions: works on drafts or live events, requires the write permission, and cannot remove the organizer's own row. It does not explicitly route to an alternative tool (e.g., update_guest for edits), but the removal use case is unambiguous, so context is strong without an exclusion clause.

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