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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: host authorization requirements, the effect of append_description_images preserving exact text and cover, and the fact that approval belongs to a different tool. It does not describe error behavior or any constraints around editing already-live events.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then moves through the special append-images case, the editable fields, and authorization routing. It is dense but every sentence contributes useful information; the long field list is justified by the low schema coverage.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main editing surface, special image-append behavior, authorization, and sibling routing for approval. It is not fully complete because some parameters and live-event state constraints remain unspecified, but it provides enough context to call the tool correctly in common cases.

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 only 6% across 16 parameters, so the description must compensate heavily. It maps many field names to user-facing concepts such as name, description with links, category, start/end time, cover image, discoverability, guest-list visibility, visibility, and capacity, and it clarifies append_description_images. However, timezone, absorb_fees, description_html vs event_description, and the role of requires_approval remain unclear, and the approval note conflicts slightly with the schema exposing requires_approval.

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.' It also distinguishes this tool from update_ticket_tier and implicitly from draft-related siblings by scoping the action to live events.

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 clear context for use: live events the caller manages, host connection required, and a specific alternative for approval settings ('use update_ticket_tier'). It also calls out the append-description-images path as a distinct editing mode. It stops short of explicitly excluding update_event_draft, but the 'live event' framing implies that boundary.

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