wealthbox.events.update

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'Update event by id' and mentions 'raw body'. It fails to describe consequences of updating (e.g., whether it overwrites or merges), required permissions, error handling for non-existent ids, or the format of the response. For a mutation tool, this is minimal disclosure.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value. The 'raw body' note is a unique addition that earns its place. No fluff or redundant repetition of schema info.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only two sentences. It inadequately covers the full parameter semantics, return values, error cases, or operation details. For a tool of this complexity, the description is far from complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'id' (the event identifier) and 'body' (raw JSON object for arbitrary fields), but leaves the other six parameters (title, starts_at, ends_at, location, category_id, description) without semantic explanation. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 event by id' clearly states a specific action (update) on a specific resource (event) with a required identifier (by id), distinguishing it from create, delete, or list operations. It also mentions the 'raw body' option, adding uniqueness. This fully clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 use for updating an existing event by its id, and the 'raw body' note suggests flexibility for partial updates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like create or delete, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is clear but implicit, not explicitly guided.

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