update_event

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update an existing event script' and lists parameters. It does not mention idempotency, side effects, error handling, or requirements like event existence. This is minimal 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?

The description is a single summary line followed by a bullet-style argument list in a standard format. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. It is efficient and well-organized.

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 adequately explains all parameters but lacks usage context, behavioral details, and return value information (though output schema exists). Given the tool's complexity (6 params, no annotations), it is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps for an agent to operate reliably.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for all 6 parameters. For example, interpreter lists example languages, event_type provides trigger types, xmlstatement explains source code vs XML, and eventstatus decodes '1'/'0'. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states 'Update an existing event script in Domoticz', clearly specifying the verb (update) and resource (event script). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_event (create). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_event or get_event). It lacks any context about prerequisites or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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