Update event

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnly=false) and idempotency. The description adds important semantics like 'Only the provided fields change' (partial update) and a boundary condition for old events. This supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences, each packed with relevant information: the action and fields, partial-update behavior, and ID source/limitation. No redundant or extraneous wording.

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 description is incomplete for a tool with 10 parameters. It omits several updatable fields and doesn't clarify whether its parenthetical list is exhaustive. There is no mention of return values or side effects beyond the partial update, leaving gaps for the agent to guess.

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 only 20%, and the description merely lists some parameter names without explaining formats or constraints. It omits several schema fields (e.g., athlete, event_type, ctl_target) and doesn't clarify the meaning of the listed fields beyond their names, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 fields on an existing race/event' and lists the specific fields that can be changed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_create_event and tp_delete_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?

It provides valuable usage context: 'Event ID from tp_get_events' indicates the prerequisite for obtaining the ID, and the 2-year resolution limit is a useful constraint. However, it doesn't explicitly describe when to use this tool over alternatives, though the update intent is self-evident.

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