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

Annotations already mark it as a non-read-only but non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds important behavioral context: required permissions, listing-approval condition, and exclusions such as not hiding individual hosts or routing payments.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action comes first, then required inputs, then permissions and exclusions. Every sentence carries useful selection or invocation context.

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 three-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, prerequisites, and key exclusions. It is nearly complete, though parameter semantics remain thin given 0% schema description coverage.

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 should compensate. It names all three required parameters and implies visible controls showing/hiding, but it adds little semantic detail beyond the parameter names and does not explain ID formats or constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: show or hide an owned community in an event's Hosted by section. It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, set_host_visibility, so an agent can choose correctly without opening both schemas.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites (manage the event, own the community, approved listing for showing) and the main alternative (use set_host_visibility only when hiding a person). It also clarifies what the tool does not do, preventing misuse.

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