vrchat_event_update

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'update' adds no new behavioral insight. It does not disclose side effects, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or any restrictions (e.g., cannot change groupId or calendarId).

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 only one sentence (5 words), which is under-specified for a tool with 20 parameters and complex behavior. Conciseness should provide key details while being efficient; here it omits critical information.

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 an output schema existing, the description does not indicate what the tool returns or any success/failure conditions. With many optional parameters, it should mention that only provided fields are updated (if true), but it does not.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 20 parameters (e.g., which are optional, format expectations beyond schema, or functional roles). The agent must infer entirely from parameter names and types, which is insufficient.

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 a group calendar event,' which clearly identifies the verb (update) and the resource (group calendar event). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, or get, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate its scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vrchat_event_create' or 'vrchat_group_event_get.' There is no mention of required permissions, prerequisites, or scenarios where update is inappropriate.

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