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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is a partial update ('only the fields you pass are sent') and that time fields are coupled with timezone. It still does not explain the destructive implications (e.g., effects on paid sales) that the hint implies.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the core action, then the partial-update rule, then the timezone caveat, closing with the endpoint. Zero filler and every sentence earns its place.

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 20-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key non-obvious behaviors (partial update, timezone coupling) and the rich schema documents the rest. It could say more about destructive side effects, but it is largely sufficient.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the partial-update semantics of passing fields, and the non-obvious requirement that start_utc/end_utc must be accompanied by timezone. This is useful semantic framing above the schema.

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 ('Change fields of an existing event'), making it clearly distinguishable from eventbrite_create_event and eventbrite_copy_event. It does not name those siblings, so differentiation is implied by the name rather than explicit.

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 a conditional rule ('Changing start/end needs timezone too') and the partial-update behavior, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to choose this over siblings like eventbrite_publish_event or eventbrite_update_ticket_class, nor any prerequisites.

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