edit_scheduled_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses status-transition intent (start/complete/cancel) but says nothing about permissions required, whether omitted fields are left unchanged, whether changes are reversible, or that this is a mutation. For a 9-parameter mutation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant under-disclosure.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though it trades away richness for brevity.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema should tell the agent about partial-update semantics, required permissions, and status-transition effects. None of that is present, so an agent cannot confidently predict the consequences of a call from this definition alone.

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%, including a fully documented status enum, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description's parenthetical (start, complete, cancel) merely restates what the enum descriptions provide and adds no new syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Modify) and resource (scheduled event) plus a secondary action (change its status), which is enough to separate it from create_scheduled_event, delete_scheduled_event, and list_scheduled_events. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 wording implies usage (editing an existing event, changing status), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. For example, it does not tell the agent when to edit vs. delete-and-recreate. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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