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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: statuses trigger automated emails by event stage that can reach the guest, lost requires a reason, the default per-call confirmation can be toggled off, and the tool needs a Cotlet API key with access to this app. These are real behavioral consequences an agent must know before invoking.

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-loads the core action and packs the required context efficiently, with the safety warning late but present. The 'Perfect Venue:' prefix duplicates the title and is mildly wasteful, and a few sentences could be tightened, but there is no filler prose.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the enum, the conditional requirement, the duplicate-call confirmation behavior, the downstream email side effect, and auth prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and 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 description coverage is 100%, so event_id, status and reason are already documented in the schema, including 'Required when status is lost.' The description mostly restates the enum values and the lost-reason rule rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Sets the status of one event') and enumerates the full status vocabulary, so the agent knows exactly what the call accomplishes and can distinguish it from perfect-venue_update_event. The scope is stated up front with no ambiguity.

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 concrete conditional guidance: reason is required when moving to lost, and by default you confirm each call. It also warns that changes can reach the guest and to confirm with the user before each call. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool (e.g., update_event) for non-status edits.

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