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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully discloses which data is carried over (tickets, payment options, refund policy, tax settings) and that a new ID is generated, and gives the underlying POST endpoint. It stops short of stating whether the source is left untouched or what the response contains.

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 tight sentences front-loaded with the verb and outcome, with the tool's scope in the first clause and the endpoint tucked at the end. No filler or redundancy.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is duplicated and what is produced, and annotations cover the destructive profile. It leaves open the return shape (e.g., the new event ID) and publish state of the copy, which keeps it just short of complete.

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 all six parameters (including event_id, dates, timezone, summary) are already documented in the schema. The description only loosely restates 'new name and dates' without adding format, constraint, or interaction detail, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 (duplicate) and resource (event), and enumerates the copied sub-resources (tickets, payment options, refund policy, tax settings) plus the outcome (new event with a new ID). This cleanly separates it from eventbrite_create_event, which creates an event from scratch.

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?

The phrase 'optionally with a new name and dates' implies that those parameters are optional overrides, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no direct routing to or from eventbrite_create_event or eventbrite_update_event. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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