eventstream_update

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already establish this as a non-destructive write, and the description is consistent with them — no contradiction. The description adds that only name/description are touched rather than the definition, but it does not disclose partial-update semantics (whether one or both optional fields can be supplied) or response behavior.

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?

Seven words in a single sentence with verb, object, and scope in order. Every word earns its place, and the update scope is front-loaded with no filler.

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 metadata-update tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. Gaps remain: no routing guidance versus eventstream_update_definition, and no statement that the two optional fields can be updated independently, which an agent needs to invoke the call 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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented ('New description', 'New display name', 'The workspace ID', 'The eventstream ID'). The description adds only the implicit mapping that 'name' corresponds to displayName, which is marginal value beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update'), resource ('eventstream'), and scope ('name or description') in the first sentence, making the core operation clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling eventstream_update_definition, and 'name' is an imprecise alias for the schema's displayName field.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely named sibling eventstream_update_definition, which could plausibly also modify an eventstream. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are mentioned anywhere in the description.

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