update_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the single most important behavioral trait: unpassed fields are preserved (a true PATCH-like mutation, not a replace). Beyond that it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or that calendarId accepts 'all' to fan the edit across every calendar — a destructive-scope behavior left entirely to the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation scope, then the partial-update rule, then the recurring-event caveat. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs trimming.

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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the definition is only adequate: it omits the 'all' calendar fan-out risk, does not say what is returned, and gives no overlap guidance against color_events. The core update semantics are covered, so it is usable but leaves real gaps for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters in detail, including the scope enum and color mapping; the description only gestures at scope with 'Для серий — scope'. The 'only passed fields change' sentence adds real semantic meaning about how the parameter set behaves as a whole, which lifts it to baseline rather than below.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Изменить событие') and enumerates the mutable aspects (time, title, description, location, color), so it is clearly distinguishable from list_events, create_event and delete_event. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling color_events, even though color is one of the fields it advertises changing.

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?

It gives two useful usage rules: it is a partial update ('Меняются только переданные поля') and recurring events need 'scope'. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus color_events, which overlaps on the color field, nor any statement of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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