set_event_occurrence

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses behavioral traits: event_id resolution, action values and alias, date format, and the cascade_subtasks behavior including 409 error. It is transparent about mutation and error conditions, though idempotency is not mentioned.

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 concise (7 sentences), well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by parameter details in code format. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary details: parameter behavior, valid values, error handling, and resolution. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: event_id accepts multiple forms, action enumerates values and alias, date format, and cascade_subtasks default and error behavior. This provides critical meaning beyond schema types.

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 the tool marks a single event occurrence with an action, specifying verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_event_occurrence or reschedule_event_occurrence by focusing on status marking.

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 implies usage for changing occurrence status but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context of sibling tools offers differentiation, but the description lacks direct guidance.

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