timetree_update_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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Requires confirm=true' is some useful safety signaling, but the description does not state side effects, authorization needs, partial-update behavior, error outcomes, or what happens when confirm is not passed. For a real write operation, this is a thin behavioral contract.

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 brief and front-loaded: it states the action first and the key gate 'Requires confirm=true' second. It contains no filler or redundant sentences. However, it is concise to the point of being thin for such a complex tool, so it loses a point.

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 the tool's 20 parameters, 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is not nearly complete enough. It provides no explanation of the three required identifiers, no expected return behavior, no permission or failure context, and no practical guidance. The single confirm requirement is helpful, but far from sufficient.

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?

With 20 parameters and only 5% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining or grouping fields, but it does not. 'Selected fields' vaguely implies partial updates, and confirm=true is restated, yet calendar_id, event_uuid, and the many optional fields remain effectively unexplained.

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 identifies the operation and target: 'Update selected fields of a TimeTree event.' This is specific enough to distinguish from create/delete operations at a glance. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it stops short of 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?

No guidance is given on when this tool should be used instead of create_event, delete_event, or update_calendar_labels. There is no mention that the event must already exist, nor any scenario that should route an agent toward this tool. The only usage hint is confirm=true, which is a requirement, not an alternative-selection guide.

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