update_common_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the shallow-merge behavior, refusal on invalid command lists, and the force override. This is useful behavioral context beyond the plain 'update' semantics, though it doesn't describe return values.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then concise details on merge behavior and validation override. Every sentence adds value with zero waste.

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 covers the essential behavioral quirks (merge, validation, force) but omits return semantics like summary vs verbose output. However, dryRun and verbose are explained in the parameter schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about shallow merging and which fields to use, but the individual parameters are already well-documented in the schema. No additional parameter-specific meaning is needed.

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 updates a common event's properties via shallow merge, naming specific fields (name, trigger, switchId, command list). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_common_event or call_common_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 gives concrete use cases ('Use for name, trigger, switchId, or to replace the whole command list') which imply when to choose this tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. Clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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