luma_update_event_draft

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full disclosure. It notes partial update semantics but omits side effects, idempotency, auth requirements, or that it returns a draft state. Lacks context about the staging lifecycle.

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?

Description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loads the key behavior. However, it could include a brief bullet on parameter groups without adding bloat.

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?

With 11 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (unseen), the description fails to explain return values, error handling, or the draft update flow. Very incomplete for a staging 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 0%, but description adds no parameter explanations. Does not clarify formats for 'start_at', 'timezone', or meaning of 'extra'. Only states that only provided fields change, which is generic.

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 stages an event update and only changes provided fields. It distinguishes from siblings like luma_create_event_draft (create) and luma_update_event_confirm (confirm).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. luma_update_event_confirm or luma_create_event_draft. Does not mention prerequisites or that it produces a draft needing confirmation.

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