teamleader_update_event

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 states the fields that can be updated but does not disclose whether this is a partial update, whether omitted fields are preserved, or that links/attendee_ids replace existing values (a behavior noted only in the schema). For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition; the verb and resource come first and the field list follows compactly. It is appropriately terse for conveying purpose, though the brevity leaves behavior and usage guidance to other dimensions.

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?

Despite full parameter coverage in the schema, the description is incomplete for a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It omits critical update semantics, such as whether this is a patch operation, what happens to unspecified fields, and the replacing behavior of links/attendees documented only in the schema. An agent would need additional documentation or inference to call it safely.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters. The description adds modest value by grouping related parameters into familiar categories ('times' for starts_at/ends_at, 'attendees', 'links'), but it does not provide syntax, formats, or replace semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 the operation ('Update') and the resource ('calendar event'), and enumerates the updatable fields (title, description, times, location, work type, attendees, links). It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling operations like create_event, get_event, or cancel_event; that differentiation is left to the verb/name.

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 explicit guidance about when this tool should be selected over alternatives such as teamleader_create_event or teamleader_cancel_event. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the event must already exist) or exclusions, so the agent must infer the use case from the word 'update' and the required id parameter.

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