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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations: it discloses that stored fields are overwritten (matching destructiveHint), that publish timing can change as a side effect, that the updated event is returned, and that retries are safe only when the same idempotency_key is reused. That last point usefully qualifies the idempotentHint=false annotation rather than contradicting it. Missing permission/auth context and partial-update merge semantics.

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?

Four short sentences, all load-bearing: identity, what to send, consequences, retry semantics. Front-loaded with the operation, no filler, though the phrase 'Supply changed fields in body' leans on schema jargon.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and a nested free-form body, it covers effect, return value and idempotency adequately. The notable omissions are workspace/brand scoping expectations and any statement about what happens to fields not supplied.

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%, and the description's main contribution is naming example body fields (scheduled_at, timezone, event_title, scheduled_content_text) for an otherwise free-form body object, plus explaining idempotency_key behavior. It leaves query, brand_id and the workspace_id scoping rule unaddressed, so it only partially compensates 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing calendar event by id') and even names the modifiable fields, so an agent knows exactly what object is mutated. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as aidelly_update_scheduled_post or aidelly_delete_calendar_event.

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?

Implies usage ('Update an existing calendar event by id. Supply changed fields in body...') and warns that changes can shift publish timing, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. An agent must infer the boundary between this and updating a scheduled post.

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