Update event

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the bar for added behavioral context is lower. The description adds value by explaining the effect of status start/end, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as partial update semantics, validation rules, or what happens to existing fields when omitted. No contradiction with annotations.

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. It packs both the editing purpose and lifecycle nuance efficiently, with every phrase contributing to understanding. The structure is clean and immediately scannable.

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 tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality adequately by mentioning both detail editing and lifecycle statuses. However, it omits details about required event identification, behavior on success/failure, and any side effects, leaving gaps for an agent to infer. The annotations (readOnly destructive) partially mitigate but do not complete the picture.

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 25% (event and guild), leaving six parameters undocumented. The description adds meaning for one parameter (status values start/end) but does not clarify formats or semantics for start_time, end_time, location, description, or name. It fails 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('scheduled event's details'), and explicitly differentiates the lifecycle functionality (status start/end) from sibling tools like create_event and cancel_event. The phrasing 'move it through its lifecycle' adds distinctive scope.

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 usage for editing existing events but does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., create_event for new events, cancel_event for deletion) or when not to use it. The lifecycle explanation provides some guidance for status transitions, but overall the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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