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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the reset-what-is-omitted behavior field by field, that an empty list removes all speakers/labels, and that start must fall on an existing event day. This is exactly the kind of consequence detail an agent needs before calling a destructive full-replace.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with 'WRITE' then the core replace semantics, then the reset warning. It is a long run-on sentence that repacks the same field list twice (prose and inline code), costing some readability, but no clause is 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 15-parameter destructive full-replace with no output schema, the description supplies the get-first workflow, the required-field rationale, the removal convention, and the preserved fields. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely and correctly is missing.

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 earns extra by explaining that type/speaker_ids/label_ids/capacity/discussion/moderating/polling are required due to reset semantics, and that [] clears a list. It does not respecify formats for name, description, or stream_url, which is fine since the schema covers them.

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?

Opens with an explicit verb and resource ('replace a session') and immediately qualifies the update mode ('full update, not a patch'), which is the single most important disambiguation against a hypothetical patch-style sibling. The HTTP method and path reinforce the semantics without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to read the session first via eventee_get_program and pass the current values, naming the sibling tool and the exact workflow. It also states the conditional behavior for optional fields (hall and live stream kept when omitted), which is real when-to-do-what guidance.

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