Modify an event's title, date, or duration using its event ID. Without confirm=true, returns a preview only; with confirm, applies the changes.
Modifie un événement (identifiant = fieldId renvoyé par get_next_events). La doc n'illustre que le titre ; date et durée sont transmises si fournies. Sans confirm=true : aperçu seulement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| duration | No | ||
| event_id | Yes |
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 carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the dry-run behavior ('Sans confirm=true : aperçu seulement') and partial-update semantics ('date et durée sont transmises si fournies'), but says nothing about permissions required, reversibility, or whether a null field clears or preserves the existing value.
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?
Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the verb and the ID source, with no filler. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical placement slightly interrupts the flow.
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?
For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (ID source, confirm gate, optional fields) but omits return-value expectations, error behavior, and the exact meaning of omitted vs null fields.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for several parameters: it clarifies that event_id is the fieldId returned by get_next_events (resolving the name mismatch with the schema's 'event_id'), explains confirm as the apply switch, and notes title/date/duration are optional and sent only when provided. It leaves duration units and date format 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Modifie un événement'), making it immediately distinguishable from create_event and delete_event. It also anchors the resource to an external source, but it does not explicitly name the sibling tool set it should not be confused with.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader must infer this is for changing an existing event and that get_next_events is the prerequisite for obtaining the ID. The preview-vs-apply condition (confirm=true) is given, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against siblings such as create_event.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.