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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description is not burdened with proving destructiveness. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: games finish and score, and the audience is released. This gives the agent a clearer picture of the tool's side effects.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('End the event you are hosting') and then states the observable consequences. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter action with annotations covering destructiveness and a schema covering all parameter semantics, the description is complete. It explains the outcome of the action, which is especially helpful given that no output schema exists.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for room and eventId. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'End the event you are hosting.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like host_event and attend_event by restricting the action to events the user is hosting. It also adds concrete context about what happens when the event ends.

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 phrase 'you are hosting' provides clear context for when this tool should be used, and implies it should not be used for events the user merely attends. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the hosting condition is enough to route an agent correctly.

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