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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds substantial behavior: follower notifications are a side effect, notify_followers defaults to false, per-call confirmation is on by default but can be toggled, and a Cotlet API key with app access is required. This is rich context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries operational detail, but the draft/published scope and the confirm-before-calling point are each stated twice, adding mild redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutable fields, the partial-update contract, the notification side effect and its default, confirmation behavior, and the auth requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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 meaning beyond the schema for notify_followers by explaining the intent ('set to true only for changes fans must hear about, such as a new venue') and that updates are partial via a fields pass-through.

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 (change/update) plus the resource (event) and enumerates the mutable fields (date, venue, lineup, description, ticket links). It also scopes the operation to 'draft or published event', which cleanly separates it from bandsintown_create_event, publish_event and delete_event siblings.

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?

Explains the when-to-use nuance for notify_followers (only for changes fans must hear about, e.g. a new venue) and that only passed fields change. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like create_event or publish_event, so it falls short of a full routing statement.

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