Update Event

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Set published to false to hide it from the public site' reveals a side effect of that field. It also implies a partial-update behavior, which is not specified in the annotations. However, it does not mention authentication or error cases.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or filler.

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 16 parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description gives the essential usage pattern. It could mention the response shape or any required permissions, but it is complete enough for a partial-update tool with a detailed schema.

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 schema already describes 63% of parameters, including id, slug, image, dates, and published. The description reinforces that id accepts slug and emphasizes partial updates, but does not explain individual field semantics beyond what the schema provides. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 opens with 'Update an existing event by id or slug', clearly stating the verb (update), resource (event), and method (by id or slug). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_event, delete_event, and get_event.

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?

It provides practical guidance: 'Send only the fields to change' clarifies partial update semantics, and 'by id or slug' tells how to identify the event. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusions, but the scope of 'existing event' implies it is not for creation.

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