reschedule_event

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects itself; it only states that an existing event is moved/rescheduled. It does not mention whether conflicts are checked, whether attendees are notified, whether the change is reversible, or what the response contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key action and target appear first. The only minor issue is the redundant 'o mueve' where 'reprograma' already conveys the operation.

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 input parameters are fully covered by the schema, but with no annotations and no output schema the description needs to explain the behavioral contract of the mutation. It omits effects on the original event, conflict handling, and return/confirmation behavior, leaving a significant gap for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so eventId, startTime, and endTime are already documented with formats and purpose. The description's 'using its ID' and 'new date and time' merely restate what the schema already says, adding no extra semantic value beyond the baseline.

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 a specific action ('Reprograma o mueve'), a resource ('evento existente'), and the change ('a una nueva fecha y hora'), tied to the event ID. This clearly identifies it as a rescheduling operation and distinguishes it from siblings like create_event or delete_or_cancel_event even without naming them.

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 establishes a clear context: use this for an existing event that needs a new date/time. The phrase 'evento existente' separates it from creation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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