live_select_events

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

No annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that selection is stateful (can be cleared) and that it gates downstream edits, but says nothing about whether the params are mutually exclusive, what happens with conflicting flags, or what state is left behind.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first clause before listing follow-up commands. The example list is long but directly actionable, and no sentence is 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 4-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description covers purpose and follow-up workflow but leaves the interaction between all/none/track/tracks unspecified. An agent cannot tell whether flags are exclusive or combinable.

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 only 25% (only 'none' is documented), so the description must compensate, and it does map intent for three of four params: 'named track(s)' for track/tracks, 'every track' for all, and 'clear the event selection' for none. It stops short of explaining precedence or the expected track-name format.

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 (Select) and resource (events) plus the three scoping modes it supports (named track(s), every track, clear). An agent can distinguish it from live_select_track (track selection) and from the edit siblings it routes to.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent this is a preparatory step and that live_command must be used afterwards for selection-based edits, listing concrete command examples. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative selection tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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