swapcard_update_event_document

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

Annotations are absent, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update' which implies mutation, but gives no detail on partial vs. full update, error handling, permissions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, but for pure conciseness, it earns a high score. The brevity is not a flaw in itself, but it does limit usefulness.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage), the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain parameter roles, expected behavior, or any side effects. It is far from complete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description adds zero parameter meaning—it does not explain the purpose of 'url', 'name', 'description', or 'documentId' beyond what the property names imply. With 4 parameters, this is a significant gap that the description fails to bridge.

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 an existing event document.' It identifies the resource (event document) and the operation (update). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'swapcard_update_document', though the name implies event-specificity. It is clear but not fully distinctive.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'swapcard_create_event_document' or 'swapcard_update_document'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues provided. The description is a bare statement of function without usage context.

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