WACrew

agenda_editar

Edits an existing calendar event by updating only the fields you provide, such as title, time, location, description, or guests. Use it to change one recurring occurrence while preserving the series.

Instructions

Altera um evento (só os campos passados). Início sem fim mantém a duração. convidados SUBSTITUI a lista. CONVIDADOS: o Google manda e-mail de convite na hora. Só inclua convidados quando o operador pedir, e antes mostre a ele o evento (título, quando, quem) e espere o OK. Sem convidados, ninguém recebe nada. Em evento recorrente, muda só esta ocorrência.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "agenda": "<agenda>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "agenda_editar"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	id do evento (vem do agenda_ver)
`fim`	No
`meet`	No	true = cria link do Meet se ainda não houver
`local`	No	'' apaga
`agenda`	Yes	id da agenda (vem do agenda_ver)
`inicio`	No
`titulo`	No
`descricao`	No	'' apaga
`convidados`	No	lista nova completa de e-mails
`dia_inteiro`	No
`duracao_min`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that only supplied fields change, that a start without an end preserves the existing duration, that convidados REPLACES the whole list rather than merging, that Google sends invite e-mails immediately, and that recurring events only modify this occurrence. These are exactly the side effects an agent could not infer otherwise.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by escalating-risk constraints in short declarative sentences. Every sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact (partial update, duration, replacement, notification, confirmation, recurrence) with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the risky behaviors and the human-in-the-loop requirement well. Minor omissions remain: no mention of what is returned after the edit, and dia_inteiro/duracao_min interactions are left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 55%, and the description compensates for the most consequential gaps: replacement semantics for convidados, and the inicio/fim duration interaction. Params still undocumented in both places (titulo, dia_inteiro, duracao_min) are mostly self-descriptive, so the residual gap is small.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Altera um evento (só os campos passados)" states a specific verb (alter/edit) and resource (event) and immediately clarifies the partial-update scope. It does not name the sibling it should be preferred over (e.g. agenda_marcar for creation, agenda_apagar for deletion), but the create-vs-edit distinction is inferable from the verb.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Strong conditional guidance for the highest-risk parameter: only include guests when the operator asks, first show the event (title, when, who) and wait for OK. It also states that without guests nobody is notified. It lacks explicit routing versus siblings (agenda_marcar/agenda_apagar), which keeps it from a 5.

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