dingtalk_calendar_event_update

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention prerequisites (event must exist), partial vs full update semantics, or error behavior. It also mentions '参与者' (participants) which is not in the schema, creating potential confusion. No return value or permission context is provided.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks behavioral context, update semantics, and return expectations. It doesn't explain what happens on partial updates or error conditions, making it insufficient for an agent to use reliably.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all 5 fields. The description adds minimal value by grouping 'time, title, participants', but 'participants' doesn't correspond to any schema parameter, slightly impairing clarity. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 '更新' (update) and resource '日程信息' (calendar event information), clearly distinguishing it from sibling create/delete/get tools. It explicitly mentions updatable fields (time, title) and scope.

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 implies usage (update existing event) via the verb and required event_id, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. An agent must infer from the name that this is for modifying existing events, not creating new ones.

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