indico_update_contribution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds PATCH semantics ('Fields left out keep their value'), which is real context beyond the annotations, but it omits permission requirements and the fact that 'people' replaces the entire list rather than appending (that detail lives only in 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and field list, with the partial-update rule immediately after. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. For a mutation tool the description covers the field list and partial-update behavior adequately, though permission prerequisites are absent.

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 a middling 57%; the description names the four optional mutable fields (title, description, duration, people) which maps to title, description, duration_minutes and persons, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. The two required identifiers are documented only in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Change') plus resource ('contribution') and enumerates the mutable fields (title, description, duration, people). This clearly separates it from indico_update_event and indico_update_session by resource name, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 says nothing about when to use this versus indico_create_contribution, indico_update_event, or the scheduling tools, and gives no prerequisites such as required edit permissions on the event. The only usable guidance is the partial-update implication, which is a behavioral trait rather than a usage condition.

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