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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared, the description adds real context: it 'opens nothing by itself' and returns a step-by-step guide (screens, buttons, fields), plus notes the public API is write-only and Enterprise-only. However, the closing API sentences are tangential to event updating and do not describe return granularity or any limits on the instructions produced.

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 sentences front-load the key distinction (instruction generator, not actor) and the follow-on browser-tool workflow. The final sentence about the Leads API and Enterprise plan is off-topic padding that dilutes an otherwise tight description.

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 zero-parameter guidance tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essentials: what it returns, that it is non-acting, and which tools to use next. Output format is only loosely specified ('step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'), leaving minor gaps.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description's job here is to convey how the tool works, which it does adequately.

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 ('Update event details in the user's own Perfect Venue account') and immediately clarifies that it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action, which resolves the confusion between the 'update' name and a guidance tool. It names the cotlet_browser_* tools as the mechanism that actually performs the change, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like perfect_venue_create_lead.

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 context: use this to get instructions on updating event details, then execute the change with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser. It does not state when NOT to use this versus other Perfect Venue siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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