luma_update_event_confirm

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.