update_agenda

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: deactivation via is_active=False is irreversible, and new_tasks can only be added if the agenda is active. Since no annotations are present, this provides much-needed transparency. It does not describe other side effects or error conditions, but the key behaviors are covered.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args list and Returns note. It is concise but includes necessary constraints. Minor redundancy with schema titles does not hurt clarity.

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 five parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core semantics, key behavioral caveats, and return type. It could be improved by clarifying whether title/description updates are allowed on inactive agendas, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The Args section explains every parameter beyond the schema types. It adds meaning by stating that is_active=False deactivates irreversibly and that new_tasks is only accepted on active agendas. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 begins with 'Update an agenda's status, details, or add new tasks,' which clearly identifies the verb (update), resource (agenda), and scope (status, details, new tasks). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_agenda, get_agenda, delete_agenda, and update_task by explicitly targeting the agenda resource.

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 implies usage when one needs to modify an agenda, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as update_task nor provide exclusions. The caution about irreversible deactivation is useful but not enough to reach the explicit-usage level.

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