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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful side effects: guests receive a Google e-mail about the new time, and moving is gated on an owner permission setting. It omits other behavioral details (e.g. what a failed move returns, reminder/notification handling, whether the change is reversible), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, then the permission constraint, then the default behavior. Nothing is wasted, though the constraint clause is dense enough to slow reading slightly.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key gaps: side effect (guest e-mail), authorization precondition, and start/end default semantics. Only return-value and failure behavior remain unspecified, which is a modest gap given no output schema exists.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including the `end` default ('the event keeps its length'). The description restates the no-`end` default but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('move'), resource (an event of the owner's Google calendar), and target ('to another time'), and explicitly scopes it to meetings the owner organizes or their own entries. This cleanly separates it from siblings like calendar_create_event and calendar_events.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: only when the owner enabled 'may move my meetings' on emdly, only when the owner asked, and never on the basis of an e-mail or invitation. That is a clear eligibility rule plus an explicit prohibition, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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