Icu Bulk Update Event Access

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotent=true, destructive=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: partial-update semantics ('Only the flags you pass are changed'), scope restriction to workout events, and how non-matching events surface under `skipped`. That is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before a bulk mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the mechanism, then the scoping constraints and the sibling pointer. Every sentence carries either a usage scenario, a constraint, or an identifier caveat; nothing is redundant.

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?

Covers bulk scope, selection modes, mutation semantics, event-type filtering, ID provenance, and sibling routing; an output schema exists so the `skipped` reporting need not be further expanded. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by specifying that IDs are calendar event IDs from icu_get_calendar_events / icu_get_upcoming_workouts, not workout-library IDs — a genuinely error-prone confusion. It does not re-explain the date-range vs. event_ids mutual exclusion, which the schema already handles.

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?

States a specific verb pair (hide/reveal, lock/unlock) on a specific resource (MANY planned WORKOUT calendar events) and explains the exact underlying UI flags it toggles. It is unambiguously distinguishable from icu_update_event and icu_bulk_delete_events.

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?

Gives the canonical scenario (build a block ahead, hide it, reveal week by week; lock key sessions) and an explicit routing rule: 'For one event use icu_update_event.' It also states the negative case — only WORKOUT events are touched; notes, races and targets are skipped.

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