update_map_event

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

The description highlights 'partial update' as a key behavioral trait, indicating that only specified fields are changed. However, with no annotations provided, it omits other behavioral aspects such as error handling, idempotency, or authorization requirements.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes parenthetical clarification. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (3 required params, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or validation. It does not fully address the context needed for an agent to use it confidently.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description's 'partial update' adds minimal context beyond the schema's 'Fields to update'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb 'update', the resource 'existing map event', and specifies that it is a 'partial update'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_map_event' or 'delete_map_event'.

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 modifying existing events, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus creating a new event or deleting one. No prerequisites or alternative tools are mentioned.

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