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. It confirms this is a mutation of an existing event but says nothing about permissions, whether the patch is partial or full replacement, whether omitted fields are preserved, or reversibility. Only the minimal 'existing' precondition is conveyed.

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?

It is a single short phrase, so it is not bloated, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. For a tool with an opaque nested patch object, this size leaves critical information out.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented free-form patch object, and 0% schema coverage demands far more description than one vague sentence. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter information at all. The free-form 'patch' object (additionalProperties: {}) and event_id/project_id are completely undocumented in both places, so an agent has no guidance on what patch keys are valid or how event_id relates to project_id.

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 clear verb+resource ('更新已有事件' = update an existing event), which is enough to know it mutates an existing event. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling mutation tools such as register_event, fill_event_template, or link_event_to_scene, so the agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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 word '已有' implies the event must already exist, giving a faint precondition, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of alternatives (e.g. register_event for new events), and no exclusions. Usage must be entirely inferred.

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