update_event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is to add context. It does add the important partial-update semantics and the citation-scope limitation, which go beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing undo/reversibility or the response shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the partial-update rule, then the sibling pointer. No filler or redundancy.

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 a mutation tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: partial updates, field omission behavior, and the citation boundary. Only minor gaps remain (no mention of undo/error behavior or return value), which the annotations and schema largely absorb.

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 'event', 'date', 'place', and 'description' including Gramps date syntax and the place-resolution rules. The description only names the same fields, so the baseline 3 applies; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (Edit) and resource (event) plus the exact editable fields (date, place, description). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling mutators like update_place, update_person, or update_citation without needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the partial-update rule ('Only the fields you provide are changed; the rest are left as-is') and an exclusion with an alternative route ('This does NOT change the event's citations -- use cite_event'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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