create_text_overrides

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it partially discharges this by disclosing the endpoint, the 400 error codes (MISSING, INVALID), and the required Bearer token auth. It does not say what a successful response returns, whether creates are idempotent, or whether existing overrides are overwritten. With no annotations, this is a meaningful but incomplete disclosure.

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 organized into labeled sections (ENDPOINT, PARAMETERS, ERRORS, AUTHENTICATION) with the purpose front-loaded. It is efficiently sized for a five-parameter mutation tool, though the schema restatement in PARAMETERS is somewhat redundant.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth and error codes well, but it does not describe the return value or the shape of the required 'strings' array elements. An agent still lacks enough to construct the payload confidently.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates each parameter and adds one genuinely useful note ('locale... uses event locale or default'), which exceeds the schema for that field, but it does not explain the structure of the required 'strings' objects.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create Text Overrides') and clarifies the scoping dimension ('Organization, Venue, or Event'), which is enough to distinguish it from the read counterpart get_text_overrides. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling the way a fully differentiated definition would.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of the alternative get_text_overrides for retrieving overrides. The only usage signal is implicit: the tool creates overrides scoped to an organization, venue, or event.

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