skylight_update_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, but it does not reveal whether the update is a full replacement or partial patch, how recurrence is handled, whether an existing event is required, or what happens on failure.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise, but the brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations.

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 mutation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, this description is far too thin. It omits update semantics, required prerequisites, return behavior, and the meaning of most parameters. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly in non-trivial cases.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 42%, so the description should compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It only clarifies that 'id' identifies the event to update; it adds no meaning for frameId, invited_emails, timezone, all_day, location, description, or other fields. Several property descriptions exist in the schema, but the overall parameter semantics are incompletely conveyed.

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 names a specific verb ('Update'), resource ('calendar event'), and the key identifier ('by id'). This clearly differentiates it from create/delete/get/list event siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the similarly named skylight_update_event_notification_settings.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of create_event, delete_event, get_event, or list_events. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer that this is for modifying an already-created event.

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