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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behaviors: the action is performed on behalf of a default user (not the caller), and a bearer token is required. This goes beyond a generic mutation description, though it omits error behavior or idempotency details.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical for statuses. Every word adds value: the action, the allowed values, the clear behavior, the default-user context, and the auth requirement. No fluff.

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 simple 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, auth requirement, acting on behalf of a default user, and the status semantics. It does not mention return values, but that is not necessary without an output schema.

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 50%: gigId is well-described in the schema, but status is only an enum with no description. The description adds critical semantics by explaining 'none to clear it' and implying going/maybe are setting states. This compensates for the schema gap.

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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Set attendance status for a gig' with specific valid values (going, maybe, none). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list_upcoming_gigs, get_site_links, get_top_tracks) which are all read-only operations.

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?

The description provides clear context by noting it acts 'on behalf of the site's configured default user' and requires a bearer token. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are all read-only, making the RSVP use case implicit.

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