evite_update_event

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits: confirm-gated dry-run preview, no action without confirm, and partial update semantics (only passed fields change). This adds value beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by detailing the mutation's safety mechanism and side effects. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and immediately followed by the most important caveat. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 100% schema coverage, the description focuses on the only missing context: the confirm-gating behavior and partial update semantics. It mentions the dry-run preview output, which partially covers the lack of an output schema. It does not describe the exact preview format, but that is a minor gap for an edit tool. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 provides 100% parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds collective parameter semantics: 'only the fields you pass change' clarifies that all parameters are optional for partial updates. It also reinforces the confirm parameter's purpose, which is already in schema but is critical enough to warrant emphasis.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Edit an existing Evite event'. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like evite_create_event and evite_cancel_event by specifying 'existing event' and noting that only passed fields change. This is unambiguous and precisely scoped.

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 for modifying an existing event and the confirm-gated workflow is clearly explained. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool names and the 'existing event' phrasing make the intended context obvious. The confirm:true requirement is a crucial usage guideline that is clearly stated.

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