update_event

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

Discloses a non-obvious consequence (renaming would detach automations) and the ability to clear the schema with null. With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so adequately, though response behavior and effects on existing events are not covered.

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?

Two sentences, leading with the core purpose then the constraint and parameter usage. Every clause earns its place with no fluff.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the purpose, the key invariant, and the parameter semantics. The immutability warning is critical and included, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description need not add much. It does restate the schema semantics ('flat key→type map' and null-to-clear) but adds no new information beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific action: 'Update a custom-event definition's payload schema', with the HTTP method and resource. This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_event, delete_event, and send_event.

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?

Explicitly warns that the event NAME is immutable and names the alternative: 'create a new event to rename.' It also specifies when passing null as schema is appropriate, giving an agent a clear decision rule.

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