Reprogramar/editar un evento

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral detail that only provided fields are updated (merge semantics), which is not disclosed by annotations. This is valuable context and does not contradict the 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?

One sentence conveys the core action, scope, and update semantics with zero redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action ('Cambia') and includes a technical reference (UpdateItem) without excess.

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 straightforward update tool with full schema descriptions and annotations, this description is sufficient. It does not explain error behavior or return values, but that is not necessary given the simple nature and absence of an output schema. The partial-update note is essential and present.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that only passed fields are updated, which explains the optionality of start/end/subject/location and reinforces the partial-update behavior. This goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('cambia') and names the resource ('evento existente') plus the editable fields (horario, asunto, lugar). Mentioning 'UpdateItem' ties it to EWS and clearly distinguishes it from sibling create, delete, accept, and decline tools.

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 phrase 'evento existente' implies it is for editing existing records, not creating or deleting. 'Solo actualiza los campos que pases' provides explicit partial-update guidance. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit exclusion.

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