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

With only destructiveHint=true in the annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does not explain the implications of creating a discount (e.g., that it is a write operation, that it may affect sales, or whether it can be deleted), nor does it mention any side effects or permission requirements. The destructive hint is present but the description adds little to clarify the risk or reversibility.

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 concise and front-loaded, packing three sentences with distinct information: the three discount types, the scoping rules, and the API endpoint. Every sentence earns its place, though the final API endpoint line may be more technical detail than needed for an AI agent.

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 creation tool with 11 parameters, a required-field set, and no output schema, the description covers the core type/scope semantics but omits important behavioral details like permission requirements, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returned ID). Given the lack of annotations beyond destructiveHint, more context on safety and side effects would be expected.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level scope semantics for event_id and ticket_group_id, which is slightly more than the schema's individual parameter descriptions, but it does not clarify the constraints between parameters (e.g., ticket_class_ids only with event_id, or mutual exclusivity of amount_off and percent_off) beyond what the schema already states.

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 the specific verb (create) and the three resource variants it produces (promo code, public discount, access code), mapping each to the enum value of the 'type' parameter. It distinguishes itself from the sibling eventbrite_update_discount and eventbrite_list_discounts by explicitly being the creation tool for all three discount kinds.

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 clear context for the scoping logic: event_id (+ticket_class_ids) for one event, ticket_group_id for a group, neither for organization-wide. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus eventbrite_update_discount, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as previously listing events or ticket classes.

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