events_modify

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals that status transitions are server-validated, the return shape is a 'projected event shape,' and there is a notable quirk about creator_id absence for pre-October 2021 events. It also notes the raw/untrusted_text handling, adding useful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 bolded sections (Purpose, When to use, Status, Returns) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is mostly concise, though the 'Event text remains raw; untrusted_text provides a separately fenced copy' detail feels slightly tangential and may distract without adding clear value for modification.

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 complexity (14 parameters, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, status values, and return quirks. It is reasonably complete for typical use, but it omits prerequisites such as required permissions or field interdependencies (e.g., entity_type/channel_id alignment), which would strengthen completeness.

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 description maps high-level actions to parameter groups (reschedule implies scheduled_start_time/end_time, rename implies name, change location implies channel_id/entity_metadata.location, status transitions imply status), adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, with schema coverage at only 29%, many parameters (image, description, entity_type, privacy_level, recurrence_rule, audit_reason) remain unexplained, so compensation is incomplete.

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 fields of an existing scheduled event,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It further distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying actions like 'reschedule, rename, change channel/location, or transition status,' making it clear this is for modifying, not creating or deleting events.

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 'When to use' section explicitly lists scenarios such as rescheduling, renaming, changing location, and status transitions. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool (e.g., creating events) or name alternatives like events_create, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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