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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description explains exactly why: Outlook has no true move, so the event is recreated on the destination and the original deleted, producing a new id. This discloses the destructive mechanism and the identity-changing side effect that annotations alone cannot convey.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the behavioral mechanic, then the limitations. Every sentence carries distinct information and the ordering is front-loaded appropriately.

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, the description covers the important behavioral traits (recreate/delete, new id) and the eligibility limits. It omits any detail on the two undocumented identifier parameters, which is the main remaining gap.

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 33% — only mailbox is documented, while eventId and destinationCalendarId have no schema descriptions. The description offers only an implicit hint that the destination must be on the same account and adds no format or semantics for eventId or destinationCalendarId, so it fails to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move an event to another calendar on the same account'), which clearly separates it from update_outlook_calendar_event (in-place edits) and from the Google counterpart. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to route to, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Provides concrete when-not conditions: occurrences of a repeating series and events with guests cannot be moved. That is strong usage guidance, though it does not name an alternative tool to use when the move is disallowed.

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