update_common_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the shallow merge behavior, the validation-refusal behavior (structurally invalid command list blocks the write), and the force override. This goes well beyond a simple update declaration and covers non-obvious edge cases.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage scope, then a key caveat. No filler or redundancy. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 tool has moderate complexity with nested objects and a validation/force mechanism. The description covers the crucial behaviors (merge, validation, force). The dryRun parameter's behavior is described in the schema, and the schema documents all parameters. Missing return-value details for non-dryRun writes, but that is a minor gap.

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 meaningful semantic context by explaining 'shallow merge' (how updates apply) and clarifying that the command list can be replaced wholesale. It also ties the force parameter to the validation-refusal behavior, augmenting the schema.

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 action ('Update a common event's properties') and distinguishes it from siblings like create_common_event by specifying 'shallow merge into the existing record'. It also lists concrete properties (name, trigger, switchId, command list), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit usage context ('Use for name, trigger, switchId, or to replace the whole command list'), guiding when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with create_common_event, but the 'Update' verb and merge semantics convey the appropriate scope.

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