pws_update_event

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, signaling that this mutates state. The description adds 'PREVIEW OR UPDATE' but does not explain what previewing entails, whether changes are irreversible, how confirmation works, or what side effects an update may have. It adds only minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and wastes no words. It could earn a 5 if it added a bit more structure (e.g., separating preview from update), but as written it is appropriately terse.

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?

This is a non-trivial mutation tool with a nested changes object, a preview boolean, a confirmed boolean, and destructive annotations. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the preview-confirm flow or what happens on update. An agent would need more context to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists several updatable fields in plain language (e.g., 'runtime' for eventLength, 'preferred venue'), which helps, but it does not explain eventId, preview, confirmed, or the nested recurrence fields. The schema carries no descriptions, so the agent still lacks meaning for key parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('PREVIEW OR UPDATE'), a clear resource ('player-company event series'), and lists the mutable fields. This is clear and action-oriented, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like pws_create_event or pws_set_event_active.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pws_create_event or pws_set_event_active. There is no mention of prerequisites, confirmation flow, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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