update_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update an existing event' without explaining whether the update is partial or full, whether it is reversible, what side effects occur, or whether permissions are needed. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely short, but brevity here stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It conveys only the most basic operation and omits all contextual and behavioral information an agent needs. A concise description should still add meaningful guidance.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a nested data parameter, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct update request for an event based on this description alone. It needs details about data object structure, required identifiers, and update behavior.

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 adds nothing about the three required parameters: campaignId, id, and data. The nested 'data' object is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on its structure or required fields. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 names the specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing event.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_event, get_event, and delete_event. It lacks detail about what aspects of an event can be updated, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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. There are no mentions of prerequisites, required context, or exclusions. The use case is only implied by the tool name and the general CRUD pattern of the sibling tools.

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