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

Annotations provide minimal behavioral hints. The description adds authorization context ('you must be a host') but does not elaborate on side effects, response format, or whether creation is reversible. This is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that provides context, a parameter list, and requirements. It avoids redundancy but could be better organized (e.g., separating the parameter list into bullets).

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lean. It covers the essential purpose and prerequisites but lacks detail on return values, state transitions (e.g., whether the event must be 'live'), or relationship to sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description enumerates some parameters ('Name, description, category, priority, status, deliverable, dates') but omits 'tags,' 'notes,' and the specific date formats. It does not explain constraints like maxLength or enum values, leaving agents underinformed.

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 ('Create'), the resource ('production project'), and the context ('on a live event'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'add_task' or 'add_role' by positioning it as the container for those elements ('tasks, roles, vendors, and budget').

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 includes critical prerequisites: 'Requires event_id + name; you must be a host.' It implies this tool is used before adding tasks/roles (by saying it's the container), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or spell out when not to use it.

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