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

Annotations already supply the read/destructive/idempotent profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the auth requirement and host scoping, which are behavioral facts not present in annotations. It does not discuss response or post-update effects, but those are not critical given the existing annotation coverage.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and field list, then routing and requirements. The first sentence is a long comma-separated list, but every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

The tool has 15 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, so the description is the only source of semantic context. It covers the headline fields but leaves timezone, absorb_fees, and requires_approval ambiguous, and it never states whether updates are partial or full replacements, which is material for a large editable resource.

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 coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does provide labels for event_name, description, category, times, cover, discoverable, show_participants, visibility, and capacity. However, it omits timezone and absorb_fees, and it actively routes approval to update_ticket_tier even though requires_approval appears in this tool's schema, which could mislead an agent into ignoring a valid parameter.

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 specific verb and resource, 'Edit a live event you manage', and enumerates the editable fields, going well beyond the title. The 'live event' qualifier separates it from update_event_draft, and the explicit update_ticket_tier routing separates it from that sibling.

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 gives a clear when-to-use condition (live events you manage), a hard prerequisite (must be a host connected via 'Connect with SocialLoop'), and an explicit when-not-to-use: approval changes should go through update_ticket_tier. This is direct routing guidance rather than leaving inference to the agent.

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