Update event documentation

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

Beyond annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals key behaviors: empty strings remove values for most fields, ledgerCategory cannot be removed, and the 'complete' flag is re-evaluated. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences convey all necessary information without redundancy. Each sentence adds distinct value: the first lists updatable fields and key behaviors, the second mentions the re-evaluation side effect.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers essential behavioral aspects for a non-trivial update operation. It explains field handling and side effects. Missing an explicit success/failure response, but that's acceptable for a simple mutation tool.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the empty string removal behavior for purpose, note, and participants, and the constraint on ledgerCategory, but this is supplemental rather than essential.

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 tool updates specific fields (purpose, note, participants, ledgerCategory) on an event. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_event_completion, but the purpose is distinct enough to be clear.

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?

Provides important context on how fields behave when omitted or set to empty string, including a special note about ledgerCategory. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites.

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