kronos_update_event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds beyond that: cancel via status_id=0 preserves history, loss_reason_id enumerations, custom_fields merge semantics (unset means keep, empty string clears), and raw JSON return. No mention of auth/ratelimit, but annotations carry the safety burden and nothing contradicts them.

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?

Compact intro followed by scannable bullet-style scenarios; Args and Returns are cleanly separated. Every line earn hers place with no filler or tautology.

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 multi-scenario mutation tool, the combination of description, annotations, and rich schema covers purpose, common use cases, parameter semantics, return format, and the key sibling alternative. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Although the context signal reports 0% schema coverage, the actual input schema contains full descriptions for every parameter. The description still adds the 'only send what changes' behavior and organizes parameters by scenario, going slightly beyond the schema's per-field documentation.

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 specific verb 'изменить' (update), resource 'event', and enumerates three concrete operation types (reschedule, cancel, custom-field edit). Explicitly contrasts with kronos_delete_event, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings at a glance.

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?

Provides three clearly marked scenarios with the exact parameters to pass for each, instructs to 'pass only what you actually change', and names kronos_delete_event as the inferior alternative for cancellation because it destroys history—explicit when/when-not guidance.

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