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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real substance: it explains the destructive MECHANISM ('se crea en el destino y después se borra del origen') and the permission boundaries. It does not state whether omitted fields are preserved on edit, a minor gap against an otherwise strong disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the move mechanics, then the exclusions. Well-organized into short paragraphs with no filler, though a touch verbose for the value delivered.

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 10-parameter mutation with 40% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the moving/exclusion semantics well but omits how the date/time fields behave and whether the response is the updated event. Adequate for the move use case, incomplete for the edit use case.

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 40% (10 params, ~4 documented). The description richly explains `calendar` (accepted values and effect, beyond the schema's one-liner), but says nothing about start_date/start_time/end_date/end_time semantics or the null time handling, so the low-coverage params remain under-specified.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: it EDITS a LOCAL event or MOVES it between calendars via `calendar`. The closing paragraph explicitly rules out editing synchronized events, which cleanly separates it from create_event, delete_event, and update_meeting.

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/when-not conditions: it details the valid calendar transitions (local → synced, synced → local, synced → synced) and enumerates exclusions (events with guests, someone else's event, a single occurrence of a series). Nothing about applicability is left to inference.

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