Update Luma event

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds the confirmation prerequisite, which is useful behavioral context. It does not disclose partial-update semantics, side effects like notification behavior, or how fields combine, leaving the agent to infer those from parameters.

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 with the action first and the critical confirmation condition second. There is no filler, and every word contributes to operational clarity.

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?

The tool has 17 parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, so the description carries a heavy burden. It provides only a one-line action plus confirmation rule, leaving many unknowns: which fields are mutually exclusive, how confirmed interacts with other fields, what the update response is, and whether the API does a partial or full replace. This is insufficient for such a complex mutation.

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 does not compensate. With 17 parameters, several require explanation (confirmed, geo_address_json, suppress_notifications, max_capacity), but the description only refers generically to 'selected fields'. Parameter names and enums provide some clue, but the agent cannot know required semantics like the confirmation flag's exact role or how partial updates merge.

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 names the verb 'Update' and the resource 'Luma event', and clarifies it updates 'selected fields', distinguishing it from create/delete/get events. It does not enumerate which fields, so it is slightly less crisp than a definition that lists them, but it is unambiguous about the operation.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only after showing the changes and receiving explicit confirmation. This handles the primary safety concern for a mutation tool. It does not contrast with siblings like create_event or delete_event, but those are sufficiently distinct by name that exclusionary guidance is less critical.

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