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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real operational context beyond them: the required "Manage live events" permission, the automatic refusal when a blocked or channel seat would vanish, and the human-in-the-loop requirement before acknowledging dropped assignments. That is exactly the kind of consequence information an agent needs before calling a destructive mutation.

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?

Four short sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the action and its scope, then use condition, then permission/refusal and the dangerous flag. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or 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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, permission, refusal behavior, and the risky flag. It does not say what is returned or how the prior chart assignment is affected on success, leaving a small gap for an agent confirming the outcome.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds policy that the schema cannot: acknowledgeDroppedAssignments may only be used "after a person checks," and the example shows the expected eventKey shape with a source hint (list_chart_events). The reason parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with a scoping qualifier: "Move an event not yet on sale onto the latest published chart, keeping its blocks." This distinguishes it from the chart-editing siblings (update_chart_categories, update_chart_theme) and from configuration siblings (update_event_configuration), since the action is a repointing to the latest published chart, not an edit of chart content.

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 when: a published change should reach an event in setup" gives a clear trigger, and the description adds a refusal condition (blocked or channel seat would vanish) plus a caution on acknowledgeDroppedAssignments. It stops short of naming the alternative path (e.g. update_event_configuration) for events already on sale, so the boundary is implied rather than explicit.

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