Add Luma guests

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

The description clarifies that this registers guests (a side effect) rather than sending a soft invite, and that it requires confirmation before execution. This goes beyond the annotations (which don't indicate idempotency or confirmation) and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior without contradicting the provided hints.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states purpose and key capabilities, the second gives actionable UX guidance. Every word earns its place, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with confirmation, the description covers the essential workflow (confirm before adding) and distinguishes from send_invites. While it doesn't mention return values or error handling, those are less critical given no output schema and the tool's direct nature. The guidance to show a summary before confirmation fills a key contextual gap.

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 only 43%, so the description partially compensates by referencing tickets, status, and email choice. However, it doesn't elaborate on the guests array structure, registration_answers, or the specific interaction between ticket and tickets parameters beyond what the schema descriptions already say. It adds some meaning but not full compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

The description states a specific action (add guests), a resource (guests to an event), and key attributes (tickets, approval status). It explicitly contrasts with 'soft invite' to distinguish it from sibling tools like send_invites, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 differentiates this from sending a soft invite, implying when to use it (direct registration) versus alternatives. It also instructs to show event, recipient count, status, ticket assignment, and email choice before confirmation, providing clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or state exclusions.

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