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

Adds value beyond annotations: notes reversibility ('Reversible'), which is critical since destructiveHint=true might imply permanent destruction. Also clarifies scope ('live event you manage'). No contradictions with annotations.

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, no filler. Action first, then key traits (reversible, prerequisites). Efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Covers main behavioral aspects (action, reversibility, prerequisites). Lacks details about effects on existing ticket sales or whether the tier is hidden vs. soft-deleted. For a simple archive tool, it is largely complete but could be slightly more thorough.

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 description carries full burden. Merely states 'requires event_id + tier_id' without explaining their meaning (e.g., what constitutes a valid tier_id? How to obtain them?). Does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Clearly states the action 'Archive a ticket tier' with the parenthetical 'take it off sale' providing an explicit synonym. Distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_ticket_tier' and 'unarchive_ticket_tier' by mentioning reversibility.

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?

Specifies prerequisites: 'on a live event you manage' and 'you must be a host'. Lists required parameters. Implicitly contrasts with alternatives (e.g., delete_ticket_tier), but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if tier is already archived).

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