update_event

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveness and idempotency, but the description adds the ETag concurrency control mechanism, which is a meaningful behavioral detail not present in the annotations. It hints at optimistic concurrency and potential conflicts, enriching the agent's understanding beyond the structured metadata.

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 is front-loaded with the primary action ('Update an event') and includes a useful detail (ETag concurrency control). Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 complexity of 14 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks details on how to obtain the ETag, what the request_id is for, how scope affects updates, or what the response contains. The one-sentence description covers only the surface of the operation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level information. With 14 parameters, including complex objects like alarms and attendees, the agent receives zero guidance on their meaning or usage. The description's mention of ETag doesn't map to any explicit parameter in the schema, leaving all parameter semantics unexplained.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('an event'), making it distinct from sibling tools like create_event or delete_event. The mention of 'ETag concurrency control' adds a specific implementation context, but it doesn't explicitly elaborate on the scope of updates (e.g., single occurrence vs. series) beyond what's implied by the schema.

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 the tool is for modifying existing events, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like create_event or get_event. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining an ETag via get_event) or scenarios where update might be inappropriate. This leaves usage context implied rather than explicit.

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