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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the operation is outward-facing (event becomes public/bookable), that it consumes one monthly event credit, that it requires a connected account, and that calling it on an already-live event is a no-op returning the event unchanged. This is exactly the operational context annotations do not carry.

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 core action is front-loaded, followed by the two invocation paths, then caveats on cost and side effects. Every sentence adds distinct information, though the middle sentences are dense and could be split for readability.

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?

With no output schema and non-destructive/non-idempotent annotations, the description covers auth requirements, cost, outward-facing impact, and the live-event no-op case. It omits what a successful publish returns, which is a minor but real gap.

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 carry the load — and it does, explaining that event_id targets a draft you host while draft_id + edit_token are the recovery path for a failed create_event_draft. It assigns clear meaning to all three parameters and their pairing, though it omits format/length guidance.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Make a draft event live.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming duplicate_event and create_event_draft as the tools that produce the drafts this one publishes, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

It specifies both call modes explicitly — pass event_id for a draft you host (from duplicate_event or the studio), or pass draft_id + edit_token to finish a create_event_draft whose one-step publish failed (e.g. after set_profile_name). This tells the agent exactly which alternative path to pick and under what condition.

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