Update confirmation settings for a calendar (manual vs auto-verify, email vs SMS).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| calendarId | Yes | The calendar ID | |
| confirmationMode | No | manual requires provider confirmation, auto_verify auto-confirms | |
| communicationChannel | No | Communication channel for confirmations |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds the scope of the update (manual/auto-verify, email/SMS) but doesn't disclose whether it's a partial or full update, or any permission requirements. Since annotations cover the basic operational traits, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the tool's purpose and key options without any waste. It earns its place and is easy to parse.
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?
The tool is simple with full schema coverage and annotations providing operational context. The description adequately covers the purpose and main parameters. However, it doesn't specify whether updating one setting preserves or resets others (partial vs full update), which is a minor gap for a mutation tool. Given the low complexity, this is sufficient.
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 100%, and the schema already describes each parameter and enum value in detail. The description merely mentions the enum values ('manual vs auto-verify, email vs SMS') without adding new information, so it adds no value beyond 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?
The description clearly states the tool updates confirmation settings for a calendar, with specific verb 'Update' and resource 'confirmation settings'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_confirmation_settings (read) and update_booking_settings (different settings).
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 makes it obvious when to use the tool (to update confirmation settings), and sibling tools like get_confirmation_settings indicate an alternative for reading. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names are given, so it doesn't quite reach 5.
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.
