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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does exceptionally well: it discloses that Outlook has no true move, so the event is recreated and the original deleted, resulting in a new id. It also explicitly states that recurring occurrences and events with guests cannot be moved. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and constraint disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the second sentence packs in the important caveats. No fluff, every clause earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the return value (e.g., new event id or object) and how to source the required IDs (e.g., list_outlook_calendars, list_outlook_calendar_events). It also does not mention error handling or success/ failure behavior. The core behavior is covered, but these gaps prevent full completeness for a mutation tool.

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 only 33% (only mailbox has a description). The description does not compensate for the other two parameters (eventId, destinationCalendarId) by explaining how to obtain them or any format requirements. It mentions 'same account' which hints at relationship between mailbox and destinationCalendarId, but leaves the parameters 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?

The description states a specific action ('Move an event to another calendar') with a clear resource and scope ('on the same account'). It distinguishes itself from create/delete/update siblings by naming the move operation and its constraint to a single account. No ambiguity.

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 implies when to use this tool (moving an event between calendars) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_outlook_calendar_event for editing details or create_outlook_calendar_event for duplicating. It also doesn't state when not to use it beyond the limitations mentioned (recurring series, guests), which is useful but not explicit routing.

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