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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true; the description confirms it's a mutation by 'remove role' and adds context: 'they keep their spot', clarifying non-total destruction. Service requirement 'you must be a host' is disclosed. No contradiction 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: first defines action, second lists requirements. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool is a mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action, effect ('they keep their spot'), and prerequisite. It lacks mention of possible errors (e.g., user not staff), but still provides adequate context for agent decision-making.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names the two parameters (event_id, user_id) and states they are required, but adds no further meaning about format, constraints, or what they refer to beyond the schema. No enums or additional context.

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: 'Remove a staff member's role... and demote them back to a guest'. Specific verbs 'remove' and 'demote' with the resource 'staff member on a live event'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'promote_guest_to_staff' (reverse) and 'update_staff_role' (general role change).

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: 'Requires event_id + user_id; you must be a host.' This gives clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternative tools like 'update_staff_role'.

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