update_event_capacity_tier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only signals a mutation ('Update') without explaining side effects, permissions, whether the limit is overwritten or appended, or what happens to existing capacity-related settings.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is structurally clean, though it lacks helpful detail beyond the core action.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be describedAGR. However, an agent still cannot tell whether capacity_total is a hard cap, a per-tier sum, or whether lowering it affects existing ticket classes. Missing usage guidance and behavioral details make the description incomplete for reliable invocation beyond obvious parameter passing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning for capacity_total by calling it a 'total capacity limit', but it does not explain units, constraints, or how it relates to existing tiers, and event_id is entirely unaddressed.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and the specific resource ('total capacity limit for an event'). It is distinguishable from tools like update_event and update_event_inventory_tier, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself or mention the 'capacity tier' concept in the name, so a small ambiguity remains.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_event, update_event_inventory_tier, or get_event_capacity_tier. The intended use is only implied by the description, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or context.

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