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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description merely says 'Update,' which is consistent but adds no additional behavioral context such as partial-update semantics, potential side effects, or permission requirements. It contributes nothing beyond the annotations.

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 extremely short—two sentences—and gets to the point immediately. It is well-structured with a clear 'Guidance' label, but it is arguably too sparse for a 22-parameter tool. Still, it is efficient and avoids unnecessary words.

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's complexity (22 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficiently informative. It does not mention that all fields except id are optional or that omitted fields retain current values, nor does it explain the update semantics beyond the schema. An agent might struggle to understand the tool's capabilities without reading the entire schema.

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 adds only 'by event id,' which the schema already documents ('Event id returned by cms_list_events'). It provides minimal extra value for the remaining 21 parameters.

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 'Update event' and 'Update one CMS agenda event by event id,' which clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (CMS agenda event). It is specific enough to distinguish from article/map/video tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with cms_update_event_paragraph.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like cms_update_event_paragraph or when not to use it. The only hint is 'by event id,' which is implicit. No exclusions or context are given.

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