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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new context: omitted fields are left untouched and existing invitations/responses are preserved. It also surfaces authentication/membership requirements. It does not explain the actual destructive surface (which fields, once changed, cannot be reverted), so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and affected fields, followed by the partial-update guarantee and the auth prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers scope, partial-update behavior, and auth requirements adequately, and the rich schema covers the parameters. The main missing piece is guidance on how to handle the multi-wedding case (wedding_id) and what a successful response contains.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description recaps the updatable field groups (name, type, schedule, venue, dress code, description) but adds no syntax, format, or enum guidance beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Updates) and resource (event in the selected wedding) plus the exact field set affected, so an agent can distinguish it from add_my_event, remove_my_event, and the update_* siblings for guests/accommodations/wedding. No ambiguity about what is being modified.

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?

Discloses prerequisites (requires sign-in and an Aisle membership) and the partial-update contract, but never states when to choose this over siblings such as add_my_event or update_my_wedding, nor any when-not condition. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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