Update Event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the key non-obvious behavior that `schema` replaces (not merges) the whole field list, which explains the destructive nature beyond what annotations state.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the one caveat that matters. No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits what happens to unspecified fields, permission/auth needs, and return behavior. It covers the headline change and the replace semantic but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is 75%, near the point where the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds a genuinely useful semantic for `schema` — full-list replacement — that the schema itself does not convey, though it says nothing extra about `conversion` or `description`.

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 verb+resource ('Change an event type's ... description, schema or conversion setup') and enumerates the mutable facets, so the scope is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create-event or get-event, but the mutation framing is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It also doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., that the event must already exist or that fields must be fetched first). The agent must infer usage purely from the name and schema.

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