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

Annotations declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world write, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: nothing is sent and there is no confirmation, the change is reversible via update_event/cancel_event, and it requires a Cotlet API key with app access. That is exactly the beyond-annotation context an agent needs before calling a create tool.

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 core action and dense with useful facts, but the flow is slightly choppy ('so there is no confirmation; one call to update_event...') and the 'same way as in Event Settings' clause is loose. Still, nearly every sentence carries information.

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 nine-parameter create tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers side effects, reversibility and auth prerequisites well. It stops short of saying what the call returns (e.g. an event ID needed for the follow-up invite), which is the one gap an agent would otherwise have to discover empirically.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds marginal meaning by noting Guest Approval and the Guest Questionnaire are configured at creation (mapping to guest_approval and questions), but gives no format or default detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Creates an event page on your account') and immediately scopes it against the closest sibling ('Nobody is invited until you call invite_guests'). An agent can distinguish this from partiful_invite_guests, partiful_update_event and partiful_cancel_event without opening any 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?

Routes the agent explicitly to invite_guests for inviting and to update_event/cancel_event for changes, and clarifies that Guest Approval and Questionnaire are configured here. It does not state a when-not-to-use case for creation itself, but the surrounding flow context is clear.

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