eventhouse_update

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the update scope is limited to name and description, but it does not disclose partial-update behavior, idempotency, or required permissions, so it adds only modest behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, object, and affected attributes with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose parameter semantics are fully documented in the schema.

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 simple two-field update tool, the description plus the 100%-coverage schema and safety annotations provide enough to call it correctly: required IDs are in the schema, and the operation's non-destructive mutation nature is clear. It could note whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already documents workspaceId, eventhouseId, displayName, and description. The description's 'name or description' restates the optional parameters without adding new syntax, constraints, or update semantics 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Update'), the resource ('eventhouse'), and the exact mutable attributes ('name or description'), making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like eventhouse_create, eventhouse_delete, and eventhouse_get. The schema's displayName/description fields map cleanly to the description's wording.

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 only guidance is implicit: an agent can infer that this tool is for modifying an existing eventhouse's metadata, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose it over alternatives or whether both fields can be updated in one call. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool references are provided.

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