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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructiveness and open-world behavior, but the description adds real value beyond them: guests are not notified, replies are not deleted, and choices that already have replies cannot be removed. The partial-update semantics ('only the fields to change') further clarify behavior. It doesn't cover failure modes such as an expired manage link, which is the only notable gap.

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: trigger and alternative first, edit surface and input convention second, constraints last. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 rich schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the definition covers everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly. Only minor omissions remain, such as what happens with a stale or invalid manage_url.

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 100%, so parameter detail is largely handled structurally (baseline 3). The description still adds the partial-update rule — pass only the fields to change — and names which fields are editable, which the schema cannot express as a set.

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 specific verb and resource (change an RSVP page) and enumerates what can be modified: replies open/close, title, time, location, note, plus-one limit, deadline, question choices. It explicitly anchors itself to the page produced by create_rsvp_page, so an agent can tell it apart from its 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?

'Use this when the host wants to change an RSVP page made with create_rsvp_page' gives a clear condition plus the alternative tool that owns the other case. It stops short of explicitly saying not to use this for initial creation or for guest-list changes (add_rsvp_guests), but the routing is unambiguous.

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