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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation). The description adds an authorization constraint: 'you must be a host.' It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured data.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The purpose and key requirements are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description adequately covers the core functionality, prerequisites, and optional fields. It lacks detail on return values or type enum, but is complete enough for a creation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists required and notable optional parameters (end, lane, cue number, project, talent) but omits explanation for notes, type, description, project_id, talent_ids. Partial help, but incomplete for 11 parameters.

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 run-of-show cue/schedule item to a live event, specifying the resource (cue) and action (add). It distinguishes from siblings like add_guest or add_inventory_item by focusing on event scheduling items.

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 explicit prerequisites: requires event_id, title, start_at, and that the user must be a host. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the context and sibling names make the use case clear.

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