edit_venue

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool updates a venue but does not clarify whether updates are partial (merge) or full replacement, the need for permissions, or any side effects. The return value is not described, leaving ambiguity.

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 that efficiently states the purpose and examples. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy. However, it could be slightly expanded to include one or two more key points 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 tool has 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return behavior, error handling, or how the update process works (e.g., whether all fields are required or optional). The examples only cover a subset of parameters, leaving many unspecified.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The description adds minimal extra context by mentioning examples like 'social media URLs, facilities, ticket info', which aligns with several parameters. This meets the baseline for high coverage but does not significantly enhance understanding 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 'Update an existing venue' and provides examples of updatable fields (social media URLs, facilities, ticket info). This distinguishes it from create_venue and other sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other edit tools like edit_artist or edit_event, though the venue-specific context is 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_venue or when not to use it. It says 'Use this to add...' but does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or conditions that might make another tool more suitable.

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