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

Annotations already declare write, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: the created record is an unpublished draft invisible to fans, no one is notified on creation, and it requires the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app. Auth and side-effect visibility are valuable additions beyond the annotations.

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 opening is front-loaded well, but the first two sentences are duplicated by the next two ('New event as a draft in MIO. Fans see nothing until you submit it...' repeated almost verbatim). The redundancy wastes space a tighter definition could use for missing details like validation or error behavior.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the full burden. It covers the draft state, approval flow, follow-up tools, auth requirement, and confirmation behavior for a 9-parameter mutation tool. What remains unstated (error handling, whether omitted optional fields are defaulted server-side) is minor.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the venue parameter ('name or an ID from one of your past events'), which the schema already states verbatim, adding essentially no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is 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+resource ('Create event'), clarified as a draft in MIO, and differentiates from siblings by naming submit_event as the next step and add_ticket_type for line-up pricing. An agent can distinguish this from dice_update_event, dice_submit_event, and dice_cancel_event immediately.

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 workflow context: the event stays invisible to fans until submit_event plus DICE approval, and ticket types are added via add_ticket_type. It also states 'create_event reaches no one, so it runs without asking first', which is useful confirmation guidance. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-selection rule.

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