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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds useful accept/reject semantics, but does not explain side effects, what accepting a proposal changes, or what happens when neither accept nor reject is set.

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 compact and front-loads the core update purpose before the accept/reject detail. It is efficient, though the phrase 'Quelle "own"' is terse enough to be slightly cryptic.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only 50% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It omits most editable fields, does not explain required combinations beyond event_id, and gives no return-value context.

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 50%, yet the description only clarifies event_id provenance and the meaning of accept/reject. It leaves title, category, location, and several other parameters with no added semantic guidance, so it does not compensate for 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Ändert einen eigenen Termin') and scopes it to events from list_calendar with source 'own'. This clearly separates it from add/delete operations, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

It tells the agent where to get event_id ('aus list_calendar, Quelle "own"') and explains accept/reject behavior, but does not say when to use this instead of delete_calendar_event or add_calendar_events. Usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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