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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries much of the burden. 'Only the fields you pass are sent' usefully discloses partial-update (PATCH-like) semantics, but it does not say what is at risk of being destroyed, whether changes are reversible, or how an org-wide vs event-scoped discount is affected.

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 with the mutation semantics ('only the fields you pass are sent') front-loaded, followed by the underlying endpoint. No filler sentences, though the raw REST path adds little for an agent that never sees HTTP.

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 tool with a single required field, no output schema, and only destructiveHint in annotations, the definition covers payload semantics but omits return/response expectations, error behavior, and any caution about destructive edits. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and every parameter carries its own format, pattern, and constraint text (e.g. percent_off range, amount_off exclusion), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only a high-level field taxonomy, which is baseline-level value.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a discount or access code') and enumerates the mutable field categories (amount, uses, dates, scope). An agent can distinguish this from eventbrite_create_discount and eventbrite_list_discounts on name and verb alone.

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 description implies the update path (change an existing discount) but never states when to use this versus eventbrite_create_discount, nor any prerequisites such as required permissions or whether the discount must be in draft. Usage is inferable from the verb but not explicitly guided.

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