Change the status of an event

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior and non-read-only, but the description adds valuable side-effect context: it may notify recipients or change tenant data, and requires explicit write opt-in. This goes beyond the structured 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose, endpoint, body fields, reference, requirements, and side effects are each covered in short, scannable fragments. No unnecessary 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?

Covers the essential call information: endpoint, required body fields, approval requirements, and side effects. However, it omits valid status values and response/error behavior, and the body schema remains generic enough that an agent may need the linked documentation.

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's body parameter is a generic recursive anyOf, so the description's 'Body fields: id, status' provides real semantic meaning absent from the schema. It also clarifies query parameters are generic and pagination is explicit, though valid status values are not listed.

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 and resource ('Change the status of an event'), identifies the HTTP endpoint, and lists body fields (id, status). This distinguishes it from related event tools like trigger_an_event or get_an_event.

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 prerequisites such as operator write opt-in and confirm:true, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like triggering an event or adding a comment. The intended context is implied rather than stated.

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