Change an event

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

Annotations mark this as destructive and non-read-only; the description adds valuable context by stating that attendees are notified, only passed fields are changed, and reading first avoids overwriting unseen data. This expands on the annotation without contradicting it.

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 sentences with no filler: the action, the side effect, and the critical precondition are each stated in one tight sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the essential behaviors: partial updates, attendee notification, and the get_event precondition. It does not describe return values or null-clearing semantics, but those are not strictly required for safe invocation given the other guidance.

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 documents start/end formats and event_id source, but subject and location descriptions are empty. The description clarifies partial-update semantics by saying only passed fields are changed, which adds real value. However, it does not clarify how passing null interacts with 'only the fields you pass are changed'—whether null clears a field or is ignored—leaving ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') with a concrete resource ('existing event') and enumerates the mutable fields (time, subject, location). This clearly separates it from create_event and cancel_event in the sibling tool list.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to read the event with get_event first, preventing blind overwrites. It implies the tool is for modifying existing events rather than creating or canceling, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.

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