editar_evento

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

The annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the key behavioral trait beyond annotations: this is a partial or patch-style update that changes only the explicitly indicated fields and leaves the rest untouched. This is valuable and consistent with the annotation hints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence communicates the action, resource, and update semantics with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a simple partial-update tool, the description plus the input schema and annotations is enough for an agent to select it and construct a valid call: pass evento_id and the fields to change. It does not describe return values or permissions, but those are not essential for this mutation tool and no output schema is expected.

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%, but the description's 'solo los campos que indiques' clarifies the meaning of the optional parameters: an agent should include only the fields to update and can omit the others. It does not, however, add per-field detail or explain the role of evento_id, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 gives a specific action ('Cambia'), a clear target ('un evento existente'), and an explicit scope ('solo los campos que indiques'). This distinguishes it from crear_evento (new events) and from ver_evento/listar_eventos (read-only), so an agent can identify the tool without relying on the name alone.

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 establishes a clear context: use it when an existing event must be modified, and only the fields supplied should change. It does not name alternatives like crear_evento, but the existing-event wording and partial-update wording make the selection obvious among the sibling tools.

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