Add Luma event host

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

Annotations already signal mutation and non-idempotency, and the description adds the confirmation requirement and the host/check-in staff scope. It does not disclose duplicate handling, permission requirements, or side effects on existing roles, but it does not contradict 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. The action, target, and confirmation precondition are all front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and very low schema coverage, this description is too thin. It omits the meaning of access_level values, how name and email are used, and what happens on duplicate additions. The confirmation requirement is mentioned but not explicitly tied to the confirmed parameter.

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 17%, and the description does not explain most parameters such as event_id, email, access_level, is_visible, or name. Only confirmed has a schema description. The phrase 'host or check-in staff member' hints at access_level but does not map parameters explicitly, so the description fails to compensate for low coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add'), names the resource ('a host or check-in staff member'), and names the target ('to an event'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_host and remove_host. The precondition 'after explicit confirmation' adds useful precision.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: adding hosts or check-in staff to an event, and only after explicit user confirmation. It does not explicitly contrast with update_host or remove_host, so it lacks full when-not/alternatives guidance.

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