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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavior. It only states idempotency but omits side effects, permissions, error conditions, or return value details. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 are efficient and front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it less useful than it could be.

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?

Given the simple input (one required string) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic function but neglects error states, return format, and context relative to sibling tools. Incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 0%, yet the description provides no explanation or format hints for the sole parameter `draft_id`. The agent receives no guidance on what the draft ID represents or how to obtain it.

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 action (cancel) and the resource (unconfirmed draft). The name and description align well. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like luma_update_event_draft, but the purpose is still clear.

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 implies usage for canceling unconfirmed drafts and includes idempotency. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives among siblings.

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

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

No annotations exist; the description only says 'commit' without disclosing side effects, idempotency, or permissions, leaving the agent blind to behavioral traits.

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?

A single efficient sentence without extra words, earning its place, though it could be more informative.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool and presence of output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks preconditions and effects.

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 0%; the description does not mention the required 'draft_id' parameter or provide any guidance on its usage.

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 'Commit a previously-drafted coupon' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like luma_create_coupon_draft.

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 name and description imply usage after drafting; however, no explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided beyond the sibling context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the action is a draft (stage) and does not post until confirm. This is the most important behavioral trait. It does not mention other aspects like idempotency or permissions, but for a draft tool this is adequate.

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, both front-loaded. Every word adds value: 'Stage a coupon. Nothing posts until confirm.' and 'Pass exactly one of discount_percentage or discount_cents.' No filler, highly efficient.

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?

With 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimal. The existence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need to describe return values, but more guidance on how to use other parameters (e.g., event_id, expires_at) would improve completeness. Still, essential info for staging a coupon is present.

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 0% (no descriptions in input schema). The description adds value for two parameters (discount_percentage and discount_cents) by stating that exactly one must be passed. However, the other six parameters (code, extra, event_id, expires_at, description, max_redemptions) receive no additional explanation, leaving their semantics unclear.

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?

Description clearly states it stages a coupon and that nothing posts until confirm. It distinguishes from luma_create_coupon_confirm (the confirm counterpart). The constraint of passing exactly one discount field is highlighted, making the tool's purpose specific and 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 specifies when to use: for staging a coupon before confirmation. It includes a critical usage rule: exactly one of discount_percentage or discount_cents. While it doesn't explicitly state alternatives, the sibling tool list provides context that luma_create_coupon_confirm is used after staging.

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

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

No annotations provided; description only mentions action and return value but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or error conditions.

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?

Single sentence, very concise; could benefit from slight elaboration on parameter or behavior.

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?

Simple tool with one parameter and output schema; description is minimal but sufficient given the context of siblings and output schema existence.

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?

Description does not explain the draft_id parameter or its origin; schema provides 0% coverage so description adds no value.

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?

Clearly states it commits a previously-drafted event and returns the new event, distinguishing it from drafting and updating tools.

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?

Implies it should be used after drafting an event; does not explicitly state when not to use but context from siblings helps.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavior: no posts occur until confirmation. However, it does not mention other traits like what the tool returns, error handling, or prerequisites. The output schema exists but is not referenced. The description is minimally adequate for a non-destructive draft tool.

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 consists of two short sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second clarifies the behavior. It is extremely concise with no redundant words. Every sentence 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?

The description is minimal but covers the essential distinction from the confirm sibling. Given the complexity (11 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, one might expect more context about the expected output or how to proceed after drafting. However, for a simple staging tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema already documents all parameters, no further information is necessary, but the description could have highlighted key required fields (name, start_at, timezone).

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 tool's purpose: 'Stage an event for creation.' The verb 'stage' is specific, and the resource 'event' is clear. It distinguishes from the sibling 'luma_create_event_confirm', which actually posts the event. The phrase 'Nothing posts to Luma until confirm' reinforces the draft nature.

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 implies the usage context: it's for drafting an event before confirmation. It mentions that nothing is posted until confirm, which guides the agent to use a two-step workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'luma_update_event_draft' or 'luma_cancel_draft'.

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

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

No annotations provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as irreversibility, side effects, or prerequisites beyond the basic commit action.

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 sentence with no waste, but it might be overly terse for some agents.

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?

Adequate for a simple commit operation with one parameter and an output schema, but lacks behavioral context and prerequisites.

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 0%, but the single parameter 'draft_id' is self-explanatory from its name and the description context; however, the description adds no extra meaning.

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 action ('Commit') and the resource ('a previously-drafted ticket type'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like luma_create_ticket_type_draft.

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 implies usage after creating a draft, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action is a draft ('Nothing posts until confirm') and describes error behavior for setting both pricing parameters. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., event must exist), side effects, or safety profile. The description adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and a key behavioral note. The second sentence provides specific parameter guidance. No unnecessary words; each sentence 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits explanations for most parameters, the return value, and the workflow context (e.g., relationship to other draft/confirm tools). While the output schema exists, the description does not reference it or any postconditions. More detail on parameter semantics and the staging workflow is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains two parameters (price_usd, cents) with usage rules, but the other 7 parameters (name, capacity, currency, description, require_approval, extra) are not described. This minimal coverage leaves most parameters semantically opaque, requiring inference from names.

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 'Stage a ticket type for an event' with a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'Nothing posts until confirm' differentiates it from sibling 'luma_create_ticket_type_confirm', which is implied by the tool name and sibling list. The pricing behavior further specifies the tool's role.

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 provides clear guidance on how to use the pricing parameters ('Pass either price_usd or cents... Setting both raises. Setting neither creates a free ticket.'). It also implies the workflow by stating 'Nothing posts until confirm', suggesting a subsequent confirmation step. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling confirm tool or contrast with other sibling tools.

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

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

The description discloses the return format ('typed shape plus raw payload'), but lacks details on error handling, authorization, or rate limits. With no annotations, it is adequate but not thorough.

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, no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the simple read operation and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output. It could mention prerequisites or edge cases but is largely complete.

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 0%, and the description only implies the 'event_id' parameter without adding format, constraints, or examples. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'one event by ID', distinguishing it from sibling tools like luma_list_events which returns multiple events.

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 explicitly states when to use (fetch by ID) and avoids ambiguity, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the user's profile and active draft count, and that it authenticates (proving the key works). This is sufficient for a simple health check tool.

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, no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded ('Verify the LUMA_API_KEY...') with additional output explanation efficiently appended.

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?

Given zero parameters and an output schema presumed to define the return structure, the description fully covers what the operator needs to know: purpose, authentication side effect, and return contents.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the outputs (profile, draft count) mean for the operator, exceeding the baseline expectation.

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 it verifies the LUMA_API_KEY and authenticates against the Luma API. This distinct health check purpose is well differentiated from sibling tools that handle events, tickets, etc.

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 implies usage before other Luma tools to ensure the API key works. It provides clear context but does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, though this is obvious given the tool's nature.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates the tool lists coupons and describes the scoping behavior (event-specific vs calendar-wide). However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the essential information. Every word serves a purpose; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is complete enough. It explains the core behavior and the only parameter's role. The output format is presumably covered by the output schema.

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?

The schema has one parameter (event_id) with no description (0% coverage). The description adds crucial semantics: when event_id is None, coupons are listed calendar-wide. This adds significant value beyond the schema alone.

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 action ('list'), the resource ('coupons'), and the scoping behavior ('scoped to an event or calendar-wide'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like luma_create_coupon_draft.

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 implies when to use it (to list coupons) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action, omitting details like pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with missing parameters. The minimal description fails to inform the agent about operational behavior.

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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter hints without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the availability of output schema and high schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. It states the tool's purpose but lacks contextual completeness on how to use it effectively, such as filtering status or limiting results. It covers the essentials but leaves gaps.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Although schema coverage is 100% and all parameters are described there, the description does not explain how to use parameters or their significance. It repeats no parameter info, so it provides zero added value.

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 'List RSVPs / guests for an event' clearly states the verb (List) and resource (RSVPs/guests), and is distinct from sibling tools like luma_get_event or luma_list_events. It unambiguously indicates the tool's function.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other event-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. This leaves the agent without guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation (list), which is non-destructive, and hints at pagination behavior, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or response structure. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 succinct sentences: first defines purpose, second adds pagination detail. No filler or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (no need to explain return values), the description covers core functionality and pagination. However, it omits details like what events are listed (past/future) or filtering options, but remains sufficient for a simple list tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains 'after' and 'before' as cursors for pagination, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter (default 50), leaving a gap in semantic clarity.

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 specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'events on the API key's calendar', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like luma_get_event (single event) or luma_create_event_draft (creation).

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 mentions pagination via after/before cursors, providing usage guidance for handling large result sets, but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Commit', which suggests finalization, but does not disclose whether the action is irreversible, triggers email sending, or has other side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool has a parameter and an output schema, the description lacks context about return values, the drafting workflow, and integration with sibling tools. Incomplete for effective use.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'draft_id' with no description. Schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what a draft ID is, how to obtain it, or its 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Commit' and resource 'previously-drafted attendee email blast', which clearly identifies the action and distinguishes it from siblings like luma_send_event_email_draft (drafting) and luma_create_event_confirm (event creation).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it follows drafting but does not state prerequisites or situations where it should be avoided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like reversibility, permissions, or that this is a draft. Only mentions markdown support. Insufficient for a staged action.

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 short, direct sentences with no wasted words. Efficiently communicates core purpose.

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?

Given high schema coverage and output schema presence, the description is adequate but lacks behavioral context needed for a staging action. Could mention next steps (e.g., call confirm to send).

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 the description adds minimal value beyond schema. It reinforces markdown support for body_md, but doesn't clarify parameter formats or constraints.

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 action ('Stage an email blast') and target ('event attendees'), with a note on markdown support. It differentiates from the confirm sibling by using 'Stage', but doesn't explicitly state it is a draft step that requires confirmation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the confirm step or other email-related tools. Lacks when-not-to-use and prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully describe behavior. It only states 'Commit' without detailing side effects (e.g., whether the draft is deleted, if the event becomes live, or required permissions). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is slightly under-specified but maintains conciseness.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values are not required, but the description lacks workflow context. It does not explain that this finalizes the update or how it fits with sibling tools like luma_update_event_draft.

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?

The only parameter, 'draft_id', has no schema description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'previously-drafted event update' but does not clarify that the parameter is the ID from luma_update_event_draft. More context is needed.

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 action ('Commit') and the resource ('previously-drafted event update'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'luma_create_event_confirm' (commits new event) and 'luma_update_event_draft' (creates draft).

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 implicitly suggests use after drafting an update, but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not reference alternative tools in the description.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full disclosure. It notes partial update semantics but omits side effects, idempotency, auth requirements, or that it returns a draft state. Lacks context about the staging lifecycle.

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?

Description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loads the key behavior. However, it could include a brief bullet on parameter groups without adding bloat.

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?

With 11 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (unseen), the description fails to explain return values, error handling, or the draft update flow. Very incomplete for a staging tool.

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 0%, but description adds no parameter explanations. Does not clarify formats for 'start_at', 'timezone', or meaning of 'extra'. Only states that only provided fields change, which is generic.

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 it stages an event update and only changes provided fields. It distinguishes from siblings like luma_create_event_draft (create) and luma_update_event_confirm (confirm).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. luma_update_event_confirm or luma_create_event_draft. Does not mention prerequisites or that it produces a draft needing confirmation.

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