Update details of an existing Eventbrite event, such as name, start/end time, timezone, venue, capacity, or summary, using its event ID.
Update an existing event's details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| end_utc | No | ||
| summary | No | ||
| capacity | No | ||
| event_id | Yes | ||
| timezone | No | ||
| venue_id | No | ||
| start_utc | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a partial update (PATCH-like) or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, whether the event must be unpublished to update, or any side effects. The description only says 'update' which implies mutation but lacks detail on 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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful information, but for what it contains, it is well-structured.
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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. An agent cannot determine how to correctly invoke this tool: what formats to use for dates, whether fields are optional, what the output schema contains, or how this differs from other event update tools. The output schema exists but the description doesn't reference it.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 8 parameters. It does not explain any parameter semantics: no mention that start_utc/end_utc are ISO strings, that timezone affects interpretation, that capacity is an integer, or that venue_id references a venue. The description adds no value beyond the schema's field names.
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 an existing event's details' clearly states the verb (update), the resource (event), and the scope (existing event's details). It distinguishes from create_event and delete_event, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like update_venue or update_event_capacity_tier.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that event_id is required, that only provided fields are updated, or when to prefer update_event_capacity_tier or update_event_display_settings for specific updates. The context is implied by the name and description but no explicit usage conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.