Edit Event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: 'Only include fields you want to change - other fields remain unchanged,' which is non-obvious and important for a mutation tool. It also states the required parameter. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but for an update operation this is a solid level of transparency.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, update semantics, and how to find valid IDs. It is front-loaded with the core verb/resource and contains no fluff or repetition.

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 has 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, the partial-update behavior, the required parameter, and how to obtain valid IDs. It does not elaborate on complex fields like recurrence or attendees, but the schema provides some descriptions, making this adequately complete for most use cases.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying the meaning of all optional parameters: only included fields are changed. It also explicitly names event_id as required. This adds semantic value beyond the raw schema, which mostly lists types and minimal descriptions.

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 tool's function: 'Update an existing calendar event in Less Annoying CRM.' The verb 'Update' is specific, the resource 'existing calendar event' is unambiguous, and it distinguishes from siblings like create_event (new events), get_event (reads), and delete_event (removes).

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 explicit guidance on using the tool: 'Only include fields you want to change' clarifies partial-update usage, and 'Use search_events or get_event to find valid event IDs' gives a clear prerequisite and points to specific sibling tools for locating IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for creating events), though 'existing' implies it.

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