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

Discloses partial update behavior and auto-linking side effect when a provider is assigned. No annotations are provided, so description carries burden; it covers key behaviors but omits permissions and error handling.

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 front-loaded with purpose and partial-update note, then compactly lists supported modifications in a structured manner. No 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?

Despite 23 parameters and no output schema, the description conveys core semantics and side effects, but lacks details on return values, validation, or required fields beyond the obvious; still adequate for most use cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by enumerating updatable fields, enum values for bookingFlowOrder, assignmentStrategy, selection modes, and boolean privacy flags. However, it does not mention all 23 parameters, leaving some like slug, apiKey, expiresAt undocumented.

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 a public agenda’s configuration' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like agendas_create/delete/list/get by focusing on modification.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing agenda by listing updatable fields and partial update semantics. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but provides enough context to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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