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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, but the description adds nothing about permissions, whether the change is reversible, or effects on existing calendar data. Given zero annotation coverage of specifics, the description carries the behavioral burden and falls short.

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?

Single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the core action. No waste, though it is arguably too terse given missing parameter context.

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 mutation tool with 4 params at 25% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotation detail on effects, the description leaves significant gaps: it never mentions which mailbox/calendar must be identified or the auth requirement.

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 25% – mailbox and calendarId lack descriptive text, and name/description have type only. The description's mention of name and optional description is marginal and doesn't compensate for the undocumented required identifiers.

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 (change a calendar's name) and mentions the optional description field. The name and description align, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling update_google_calendar_event or rename_outlook_calendar.

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 for renaming calendars but offers no explicit when/when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives like update_google_calendar_event for broader changes.

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