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

Goes well beyond the annotations by spelling out that no mail is triggered and that the change only surfaces on the next invite, nudge, confirmation or public page. It also declares the permission requirement ('Needs the write permission'). This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and dense with useful signal; every sentence carries meaning. The '(#529's mail rule)' internal reference is the only slightly noisy element.

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 behavior, permissions, and scope. It stops short of noting whether at least one of title/description must be supplied or what happens if both are omitted — a minor gap for a partial-update tool.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate. It clarifies that event_id accepts a draft_ id or a live event id — but that is already in the schema description — and identifies title/description as the editable fields without adding format, length, or 'at least one required' constraints.

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 ('Changes the title and/or description of a draft ... or a live event') and scopes it tightly to those two fields, explicitly matching the console's Edit form. An agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like set_date_time or update_guest, which touch different fields.

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?

The scope limitation ('for those two fields') implies usage, and naming the draft_ vs live event id forms helps the agent pick the right input. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to an alternative tool for editing other event properties.

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