Modify existing event details by supplying the event ID and any fields to update. Adjust title, time, location, description, or tags as needed.
Update fields on an existing event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| end_time | No | ||
| event_id | Yes | ||
| location | No | ||
| start_time | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says fields are updated, but does not reveal whether updates are partial or full, whether omitted fields are preserved, what happens with invalid event IDs, or what the response contains. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a mutation tool.
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 efficient sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing useful detail.
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?
The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a very short description. It fails to explain key contextual details such as which fields are updatable, whether partial updates are supported, validation behavior, or return values. For the complexity of this tool, the description is incomplete.
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% and the description does not clarify any parameter meanings, formats, or constraints. Parameter names like title, start_time, and tags are somewhat self-explanatory, but time formats, allowed values, and update semantics for each field are left entirely unspecified.
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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('event'), and scopes it to an existing event. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_event, get_event, list_events, and delete_event without ambiguity.
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 gives clear context: it is for modifying an existing event rather than creating, retrieving, listing, or deleting one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the wording is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.