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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (mutating, non-destructive, not idempotent). The description adds genuinely useful behavior: an edit preserves the artist's existing choices rather than replacing them, invitations are out of scope, and the call is restricted to artist connections. It still says nothing about retry semantics of idempotency_key or what a successful save does publicly, but it goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and mode selection, and every clause carries information (modes, location shape, invite boundary, connection scope). The telegraphic phrasing ('Artist connections only.') is compact but slightly clipped.

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 nested, mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers intent, location, edit semantics and connection scope but omits return/error behavior and the role of idempotency_key on retries. Adequate for invoking correctly, incomplete for predicting outcomes.

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 already 75% and documents the nested event fields, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a real semantic layer the schema lacks: the location model of 'a city and a country, and/or an online link', plus the event_id toggle between create and update.

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 (post/change) and resource (the artist's show, release party or listening party), and the kind enum maps directly to the named party types. An agent can immediately tell it apart from siblings like list_events, cancel_event and update_post.

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?

Clearly selects the two modes ('pass event_id' to change, otherwise post new) and gives an explicit boundary — inviting artists or Audora is done elsewhere, not here. It also scopes usage to artist connections, but never names a concrete alternative tool for the excluded invite flow.

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