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

With readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false already given, the description adds real behavioral context: coordinates move the map pin, and omitting them when changing the address clears the stale venue/pin, plus a host-authorization requirement. There is mild tension between the stale-pin clearing side effect and destructiveHint=false, but this is a metadata side effect rather than true data destruction, so it is not a contradiction.

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?

Four short sentences, all front-loaded and free of filler; the guardrail against fabricating addresses earns its place. Slightly dense, but nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (host, event_id), the conditional coordinate behavior, and the fallback that clears stale location data. It stops short of stating what happens if the event is missing, not live, or the address fails validation.

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 carries the load, and it does well for the key fields: address is 'the text shown on the event page' and latitude/longitude are 'from a verified location to move the map pin'. venue_name gets no explicit meaning beyond its name, and event_id is only described in terms of being required, not what it identifies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Set or change a live event's address/location'), which cleanly separates it from adjacent siblings such as set_event_url, set_event_image, and update_event. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 clearly states what to supply (address required, venue_name and lat/long optional) and the host prerequisite, plus a firm negative guideline ('Never invent an address or coordinates'). It does not, however, say when to use this rather than update_event or set_event_url for related edits, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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