ofw_update_event

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it reveals the merge strategy (fetch, apply changes, write back). It does not contradict annotations. It lacks explicit disclosure of required permissions or irreversibility details, but the annotation covers general destructiveness.

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: first states the purpose, second explains the merge behavior. No redundancy, efficient, and front-loaded.

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?

The description explains the crucial merge strategy, which is key for correct usage. However, it does not explicitly state that omitted fields retain their current values, nor does it describe the return value (no output schema). For a tool with 15 parameters, this is a minor gap.

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 67% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds overall context about the merge operation but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing OurFamilyWizard calendar event.' It also explains the merge strategy, distinguishing it from create (ofw_create_event) and delete (ofw_delete_event) siblings.

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 explains the fetch-merge-write approach and notes that OFW has no partial update, implying how to use parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create or delete, though the context with sibling tools makes it clear.

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