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

The description adds value beyond annotations by indicating the tool creates a place (mutation) and requires host authorization. It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It could further detail change reversibility or conflict handling.

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 that efficiently communicates purpose, scope, and requirements with no redundant text.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of inputs and authorization. It lacks details on return format, error conditions, or idempotency, but remains functional for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing key parameters (name, structure, sector, lifecycle, build status, parent place, budgets, start date). It adds meaning like 'lifecycle + build status' indicating enums, but misses tags, name_alt, and description fields.

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 adds a place/location to a live event, listing specific fields (build site, zone, venue area). It differentiates from siblings like add_space by emphasizing 'live event' context and required host role.

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 specifies prerequisites (event_id + name, must be host), providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like add_space, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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