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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: visibility changes do not affect permissions and host_id defaults to the caller. However, it does not describe error cases or behavior when the host is not found.

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, approximately 30 words, with no redundant information. The main purpose is stated first, followed by defaults and requirements. Perfectly sized.

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 simple boolean setter with 3 parameters, no output schema, and safety annotations already provided, the description covers all necessary information for correct selection and invocation: purpose, parameters, prerequisites, and behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the meaning of each parameter: host_id defaults to caller, visible maps true/false to show/hide, and event_id is required. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 ('Show or hide a host'), the resource ('on a live event's public page'), and distinguishes it from permission changes. The verb-resource combination is specific, and the tool name is unique among siblings.

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 clear context: it is used to control host visibility without altering permissions. It mentions prerequisites ('Requires event_id; you must be a host') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like add_event_host.

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