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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true, so the description must carry behavioral weight. It usefully clarifies that unpassed fields are left untouched, which is real information beyond the annotation, but says nothing about effects on already-issued/redeemed codes, reversibility, or auth requirements for a mutating endpoint.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action and the partial-update rule, plus the backing endpoint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the essentials (op, partial semantics, endpoint) are present and the schema covers parameters fully. It stops short of disclosing the consequences of editing a live discount or how failures surface, which an agent would want before calling a destructive-hinted tool.

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 10 parameters are already documented with formats, patterns, and mutual exclusions in the schema. The description's field list (amount, uses, dates, scope) adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Change) and resource (a discount or access code) and enumerates the mutable facets (amount, uses, dates, scope). Against siblings like eventbrite_create_discount and eventbrite_list_discounts the operation is unmistakably the update path.

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?

'Only the fields you pass are sent' implies partial-update (PATCH-style) invocation, which is genuine usage context. However, it never states when to choose this over eventbrite_create_discount or eventbrite_list_discounts, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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