update_venue_status

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 states the tool changes status but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects on related systems, or error conditions. The mention of recovery via another tool hints at consequences but lacks detail.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with partial schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and usage but lacks details on behavior, parameters, and outputs, leaving gaps for a mutation 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 50% (only 'venue' has a description). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema or enum. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for the gap but doesn't detract either.

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 ('Change venue status') and specifies the resource ('venue') with the possible status values ('active/degraded/down'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the specific focus on venue status makes the purpose clear and non-tautological.

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 explicitly provides an alternative tool ('fix_session_issue') for recovering degraded/down venues, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. another. It establishes a specific context for usage without being misleading.

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