Update Luma event host

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral constraints: confirmation is required, and the event creator's access level is immutable. These details go beyond what the annotations express.

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 filler. The operation is stated first, followed by the most important exception. 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 5-parameter mutation with low schema coverage, the description omits some useful details: whether at least one of access_level or is_visible must be supplied, what 'none' access level means, and what the result of the update is. However, it does cover the critical confirmation and creator-exception constraints.

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 20%, putting more burden on the description. It does explain that access_level and is_visible are the update targets, but it leaves the meaning of the 'none' enum value and the identifying roles of event_id/email to inference.

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 clearly states the specific operation: updating a host's access level or public visibility on a Luma event. It distinguishes this from add/remove host operations by naming the exact fields that can be changed.

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?

It provides clear context for use, specifically after explicit confirmation, and includes a hard exclusion: the event creator's access level cannot be changed. It does not explicitly name alternatives like add_host or remove_host, so some alternative routing is left implied.

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