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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is idempotent and not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral constraints: capacity cannot be set below sold count, paid prices require Stripe, and host permission is required. These go beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action and lists fields and constraints efficiently. Every part adds information—no filler. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

With 10 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description should cover all inputs. It covers the core action, required IDs, and key constraints, but leaves max_per_person and show_remaining unmentioned. It also does not describe error scenarios beyond the capacity constraint. For a mutation tool, it is reasonably complete but not exhaustive.

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 must compensate. It covers many parameters (name, price, capacity, description, approval/requires_approval, secret) and mentions required identifiers (event_id, tier_id). However, it omits max_per_person and show_remaining, leaving those parameters unexplained. It adds value by stating the capacity-not-below-sold constraint, but the omission of two optional fields reduces completeness.

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 (Edit) and resource (ticket tier), and lists the specific fields (name, price, capacity, description, approval, secret). It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_ticket_tier, delete_ticket_tier, archive_ticket_tier, and reorder_ticket_tiers by focusing on editing an existing tier on a live 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 provides context for when to use: on a live event you manage, and you must be a host. It also states a prerequisite: paid prices need Stripe. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool (e.g., use add_ticket_tier to create). The guidance is clear but not exhaustive about alternatives.

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