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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining what happens when hosting: the house band plays for a concert, the audience can ask questions during a talk, the Gamemaster runs a game, and the user is walked onto the stage. It also states the one-event-per-room constraint. It does not disclose response format or conflict/error behavior, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the essential details with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, kind definitions follow immediately, and the one-event constraint is stated compactly.

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?

Given the moderate complexity, full schema coverage, and absence of an output schema, the description covers the important invocation details: event types, game sub-types, and room exclusivity. A brief note about the expected response or what happens if the room already has an event would make it fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning to the enum parameters: it explains what each kind means in practice and notes that game requires 'trivia' or 'wordchain'. Room and title are left to the schema, which is acceptable given their self-explanatory definitions.

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 tool's job: take the stage and host an event, with three distinct kinds (concert, talk, game). It is specific about the resource and behavior, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools like attend_event or end_event, relying on the reader to infer the distinction.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool - you want to run an event in a room, and one event per room at a time - and explains how each kind works. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., use attend_event to join or end_event to stop), so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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