update_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses preservation of UID and single-occurrence exclusions/overrides, duration-keeping behavior when moving start without end, series re-anchoring, and the non-splitting nature. This is detailed and actionable behavioral context.

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 compact and information-dense, with line breaks that improve readability. Every sentence adds essential behavior or constraints—no filler. It earns its space given the complexity of series updates.

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 (8 parameters, series re-anchoring) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers key edge cases (duration preservation, exclusions, re-anchoring) and leaves no major ambiguity for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It explains the interplay between start and end, and the general 'Only the fields you pass change' rule gives semantic meaning to all optional parameters. However, it does not individually describe rrule, summary, location, etc., beyond the general update rule.

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 begins with the specific verb 'Edit' and resource 'event/series', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle single occurrences. It also explicitly states it does not split a series at a date, which further differentiates it from occurrence-level operations.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool (editing a whole event/series) and contrasts it with splitting behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools like move_occurrence or exclude_occurrence. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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