update_recurring_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavior disclosure. It only states that it updates recurring events and supports three scopes; it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, how the scopes alter the recurrence series, or what happens to exceptions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the key differentiator (three scopes). There is no redundant information; every sentence contributes meaning.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description only provides a high-level overview. It does not explain how to use the scopes in practice, the relationship between scopes and instanceDate/instanceDateTime, or that certain parameters are required for specific scopes. The schema offers individual parameter descriptions, but the tool-level context is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in varied scenarios.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it mentions scopes but does not explain the instanceDate/instanceDateTime requirements). It neither enhances nor contradicts 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?

The description clearly states 'updates a recurring event' (定期イベントを更新します) with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_event by explicitly mentioning the three editing scopes ('this event only', 'all', 'this and following'), which is unique to recurring event handling.

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 identifies the tool's use case (updating recurring events) and the supported scopes, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use update_event for non-recurring events'), so it falls short of a full 5.

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