evite_update_guest

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

The description clearly discloses the dry-run behavior: 'without confirm:true this returns a dry-run preview and changes nothing.' This adds significant value beyond the readOnlyHint:false annotation by explaining how to safely invoke the tool and what happens without confirmation. It also notes the 'un-sent' constraint. It does not mention other side effects or failure modes, but the confirm-gating is the key behavioral trait.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the purpose and immediately explains the critical confirm-gating behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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?

The description covers the essential context: that the tool edits drafts, which fields are editable, and the confirm-gating mechanism. Since there is no output schema, it does not need to describe return values. It does not mention error conditions or how to obtain IDs, but those are already provided in the schema descriptions, making the overall context 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already provides detailed meanings for all parameters. The description's mention of 'name/email/phone' aligns with the schema but does not add new semantic information beyond what is already documented. It also hints at the 'confirm' parameter's role, but that is already fully explained in the schema, so the description adds marginal 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Edit a draft (un-sent) guest's name/email/phone on an Evite event.' It uses a specific verb ('Edit'), identifies the resource ('draft guest'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like evite_add_guest and evite_remove_guest by limiting scope to draft/un-sent guests.

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 context for when to use the tool ('draft (un-sent) guest') and specifies the confirm-gating behavior, implying that confirm:true is required to actually commit changes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-draft guests or state exclusions beyond the 'draft' qualifier, so it falls slightly 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.