outlook_editar_evento

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool edits an event, but does not disclose permissions required, whether updates are partial or full replacement, what happens if the event is not found, or whether changes are irreversible. The phrase 'Chaves alinhadas ao backend FastAPI' is cryptic and does not clarify behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence 'Chaves alinhadas ao backend FastAPI' is somewhat vague and could be considered noise, but it is brief and does not detract significantly. Overall, every sentence earns its place, though the backend-key remark is of marginal value.

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 an update tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It should explain the lookup mechanism (titulo_parcial/data_busca), state that only provided fields will be updated, and clarify expected behavior when no new field is supplied or when the event is missing. These details are missing, leaving the agent to infer the workflow solely from the schema.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds grouping of fields (title, date, time, description) which helps map intent to parameters, but does not provide deeper semantics beyond what the schema already says – e.g., it doesn't clarify that nova_data/nova_hora_* are meant as replacements or that titulo_parcial is the search key. This is acceptable but not compensatory for the 29% undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Edita um evento existente no calendário' (edits an existing calendar event) and lists the editable fields (título, data, hora ou descrição). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like outlook_criar_evento and outlook_cancelar_evento by specifying 'existing event'.

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 tool's use is implied by 'edita um evento existente' – an agent can infer it should be used when modifying an existing event rather than creating or canceling one. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions such as 'use outlook_criar_evento if the event does not exist yet'.

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