update_timeline_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds only the partial list of updatable fields and says nothing about partial-update semantics or behavior when event_id/resource is not found.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope is stated immediately. It is appropriately tight, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a 15-param tool.

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?

For a 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 40% parameter coverage, the description is too thin: it omits update semantics, most mutable fields, and return behavior. It does not give the agent enough to call the tool confidently.

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 15 parameters and only 40% schema description coverage, the description must carry weight, but it enumerates barely half the mutable fields (name, dates, lane, link, style) and is silent on is_hidden, show_on_calendar, icon_glyph, start/end minutes, project, and document. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a timeline event'), and names the fields it touches, so an agent can tell it apart from create_timeline_event and delete_timeline_event. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings in prose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create_timeline_event, delete_timeline_event, or the lane tools, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the event must already exist). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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