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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's claim of editing is consistent. It adds the behavioral constraint that the user must be a host, which is useful context beyond what annotations provide.

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 two efficient sentences. The first sentence states the action and editable fields, the second adds constraints. No fluff, perfectly 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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and constraints but lacks details about return values or error states. It is adequate for simple use but leaves gaps for complex scenarios.

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%, but the description lists the fields (name, email, phone, category, plus-ones, note, tags), which roughly correspond to schema properties. This adds some meaning, but it does not explain formats or constraints that are already in the schema, so it only minimally compensates for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 verb 'edit' and the resource 'guest-list entry', listing the editable fields. It distinguishes this tool from handling purchased tickets, making its purpose unambiguous relative to siblings like add_guest and remove_guest.

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 context: it only applies to guest-list entries, not tickets, and requires event_id, guest_id, and host role. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., when to use update_event instead) or state when not to use this tool.

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