update_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update an existing chronology event' without explaining whether updates are partial or full, idempotency, required permissions, or error conditions. This is insufficient 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 at one sentence, front-loading the core purpose. However, it may be too sparse; a bit more detail could be included without sacrificing efficiency.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description fails to explain behavioral details like partial vs. full update, behavior when optional fields are null, or prerequisites. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is incomplete.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to any of the 6 parameters. It does not explain what each parameter does, their constraints, or how they affect the update. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Update an existing chronology event' uses a specific verb ('Update') and clearly identifies the resource ('existing chronology event'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_event (create) and delete_event (remove).

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 implies usage when modifying an event, but provides no explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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