indico_update_event

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is already covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious side effect beyond the structured data: changing dates also shifts the timetable, mirroring the Indico UI default. Auth requirements are still unstated.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and affected fields, followed by the two most important behavioral notes. Nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the partial-update plus timetable-shift semantics are captured. The remaining gap is the ambiguity around which location fields are covered and the unstated auth/permission requirements.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It names title, description, dates, and location, but 'location' ambiguously lumps together address, venue_name, and room_name, and says nothing about instance/timezone handling. It adds some meaning but does not close the coverage gap.

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') and resource ('event') and enumerates the mutable fields (title, description, dates, location), which cleanly separates it from create_event and the update_session/update_contribution siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 partial-update contract ('Fields left out keep their value') tells the agent this is a patch, not a replace, which is useful guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., permissions), leaving context to inference.

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