Update A Change Event Status

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

With annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds value by stating it performs a partial update (only supplied fields changed) and returns the modified object. No contradictions. Could elaborate on failure scenarios or idempotency, but sufficient.

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 very concise (4 sentences, ~60 words), front-loaded with purpose, and includes required params and API details. No wasteful sentences.

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 no output schema, the description clarifies it returns the modified object. It also specifies the API version and endpoint. Could include an example or note about field immutability, but overall complete for a simple update tool.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description mentions required parameters (company_id, id) which is already in schema. No additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it updates a specific change event status for a company, distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_change_event or update_a_change_event_type, and specifies that only supplied fields are changed, returning the modified object.

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 clear context (e.g., required parameters) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_change_event or update_a_change_event_type. There is no exclusion or comparison.

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