update_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Update an existing event' without explaining whether it performs a partial or full update, what happens to omitted fields, required permissions, or idempotency. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. It conveys the core action but omits valuable context, making it more a minimal placeholder than a well-crafted concise description.

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 the tool's complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain update semantics, how optional fields interact, or what happens if no optional fields are provided. The schema covers parameter names but not behavioral context.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 14 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to compensate given the thorough schema descriptions.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing event'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_event, delete_event, and get_event. However, it lacks detail about which fields can be updated or any scope, so it is not as strong as descriptions that enumerate specific aspects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the event to exist, or when to prefer create_event for new events. The description leaves usage entirely implied.

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