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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already establishes this is a mutating call, and the description adds nothing on top of that. It does not disclose which fields are optional vs destructive, that unspecified fields are preserved, whether partial updates are supported, or any authorization/ownership requirements implied by the schema (thesisRef must belong to the user).

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so raw brevity is fine, but the content is under-specified rather than concise — the one sentence conveys almost nothing an agent could not infer from the tool name alone.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description is far too thin. It omits which fields are editable, the partial-update contract, ownership/authorization constraints, and how this differs from the other four priced-event siblings.

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 seven parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the overwrite behavior of note and the empty-string-clears semantics of thesisRef. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which corresponds to the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Polish text states a verb ("Zmiana" – change) and a resource ("śledzonego zdarzenia" – tracked event), so the basic action is decipherable. However, it does not name the specific fields being changed, which is the whole point of an update tool, and it gives no differentiation from siblings like track_priced_event, cancel_priced_event, or resolve_priced_event_now. The non-English phrasing also adds friction for an agent scanning a predominantly English toolset.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing tells the agent when to edit an existing event rather than call track_priced_event, cancel_priced_event, or resolve_priced_event_now. The single sentence only restates the verb, leaving the selection decision entirely to inference.

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