submit_to_guest_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It confirms the operation is a submission (likely a write), but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing entries), required authentication, rate limits, or idempotency. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's 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 concise with two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and conditional logic. However, it could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing key points) to improve scannability.

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's complexity (10 parameters, 2 required, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It doesn't cover expected input formats, validation rules, or what happens on error. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description fails to provide enough context for reliable tool invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify parameter meanings. It only explains the conditional parameters (event_id, venue_id, service_date). Other important parameters like messaging_channel, source, and language are undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their purpose.

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 ('Submit a guest list entry') and the resource ('event or venue'), and specifies that the tool returns confirmation, door instructions, and benefits. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_vip_booking_request or get_guest_list_entry_status, which could cause confusion.

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 a clear usage condition: 'Provide either event_id or venue_id + service_date.' This helps the agent select the correct parameters. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_vip_booking_request, and does not mention any prerequisites or error conditions.

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