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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the state preconditions that cause failure. It omits what happens to the event page/tickets after unpublishing and whether it is reversible, which would complete the picture.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the state transition first and the precondition second, plus a compact endpoint reference. No filler.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the state change and the eligibility condition, which is the critical missing piece an agent needs. Return shape and post-unpublish effects are unstated but low-risk given the simplicity.

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% and the single event_id parameter is documented in the schema; the description adds no format, source, or semantics beyond what is already there. Baseline 3 for a fully-covered single-param tool.

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States a specific verb+resource ('Take a published event back to unpublished') that is the exact inverse of the sibling eventbrite_publish_event, so the agent can route correctly without opening either schema. The API endpoint reference reinforces the intent.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition for when the operation is allowed ('no pending or completed orders (or, for paid events, once completed and paid out)'), which is genuinely actionable constraint guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative for re-publishing or what to do when the precondition fails, so it isn't a full 5.

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