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

Annotations already supply the read/write, idempotency, and destructive profile. The description adds useful constraints beyond that: an edit token is required and the call must be made against the same claim link, which is not visible in the schema.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler. Every clause adds a meaningful constraint.

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 21-parameter mutation with no property descriptions and no output schema, this is under-specified. It does not say how the edit token/claim link are obtained, whether omitted fields are preserved on update, or what the result is; annotations cover safety but not these operational details.

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 across 21 parameters, the description needed to compensate, but it only gestures at 'title, time, location, tickets, etc.' It leaves edit_token/draft_id ownership, enum meanings, ticket modes, approval flags, and pay-what-you-want fields unexplained.

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 names a concrete action ('refine') and resource ('event draft you previously created'), and bounds it with 'using its edit token' and 'before they publish'. This clearly separates it from create_event_draft and update_event.

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 explicitly says to use the tool to iterate with the user before publishing, which is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative, such as update_event for published events, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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