basecamp_update_schedule_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, return behavior, or whether partial updates are supported. The one-line description offers none of this, effectively providing no behavioral transparency beyond the verb 'update',' which implies mutation.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, it is under-specified: it sacrifices necessary operational detail for brevity, making it minimally viable but not well-structured for a tool with many parameters and no other documentation.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not describe what fields can be updated, which fields are required, what the response looks like, or how this relates to other schedule entry operations, leaving substantial ambiguity for the agent.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., what 'starts_at', 'all_day', or 'participant_ids' mean or how they interact). The agent is left with only parameter names and types, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a schedule entry/event'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_schedule_entry and get_schedule_entry. However, it does not explicitly mention that this is an existing record or elaborate on what fields can be updated, so it is clear but not maximally specific.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as creating or listing schedule entries. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or provide examples of appropriate use, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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