update_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It reveals backend validation for time fields and ID resolution. However, it does not disclose permissions, partial update behavior, or response format (though output schema exists). The information is useful but not comprehensive.

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 with two paragraphs: first sentence states purpose, then adds constraints and parameter details. No superfluous text; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

With 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers only event_id and a validation rule. It lacks details for most parameters (e.g., recurrence, labels). Output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but the description does not fully equip an agent to handle all mutable fields.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning for event_id (reference forms) and mentions a validation constraint for end_time/complete_by. It also notes a v0.2 optional field subtask_template not present in the schema. Other parameters (title, labels, recurrence) are not explained. Partial compensation.

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 starts with 'Patch mutable fields on an event,' clearly specifying the verb (patch) and resource (event). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_event (creation) and delete_event (deletion).

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 provides explicit usage constraints: backend rejects end_time < complete_by, and event_id accepts multiple reference forms (UUID, shorthand, canonical, URL). It lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, but the clear purpose and constraints give adequate guidance.

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