Update booking constraints for a calendar (min notice, max advance, buffers).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| minNotice | No | Minimum booking notice in minutes | |
| calendarId | Yes | The calendar ID | |
| maxAdvance | No | Maximum advance booking in minutes | |
| bufferAfter | No | Buffer after appointment in minutes | |
| bufferBefore | No | Buffer before appointment in minutes | |
| minGapBetweenAppointments | No | Minimum gap between appointments in minutes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether the update is partial or full replacement, how unspecified fields are handled, or any side effects. It merely restates the tool's purpose, offering minimal transparency beyond annotations.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and object. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 6 parameters and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It fails to clarify whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens to unspecified constraints, or what the tool returns. This leaves important ambiguity for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, so all parameters are fully documented. The description's mention of 'min notice, max advance, buffers' maps directly to schema properties but adds no detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's function: 'Update booking constraints for a calendar' and gives specific examples (min notice, max advance, buffers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_calendar or update_confirmation_settings, which focus on other aspects.
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 the tool is for adjusting booking policies, but it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or references to alternatives. The distinction from update_calendar and update_confirmation_settings is not articulated, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but update_calendar overlaps with specialized tools like update_booking_settings, update_confirmation_settings, and the reminder management tools (add/delete/get reminders). This creates ambiguity about which tool to use for modifying specific settings such as buffers or reminders, though descriptions help clarify the intended scope.
All 28 tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_calendar, get_appointments, update_contact). The verbs are predictable (add, cancel, create, delete, get, reschedule, send, update), making the API easy to navigate.
With 28 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ threshold typically considered too many. While each tool serves a legitimate purpose, the high number is overwhelming and likely includes more granularity than necessary; some settings tools could be consolidated.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of calendars, appointments, and contacts, including availability, overrides, reminders, confirmation settings, and notifications. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations; cancellation and rescheduling handle appointment changes, and send_invitation covers creation.
