update-calendar

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds a specific constraint—'Cannot update the default calendar's name'—which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like permission requirements, side effects (e.g., affecting events), or response format, leaving the agent to infer these from the schema.

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?

The description is very short (two sentences including the tip), which makes it concise and front-loaded with the primary action. The example body is placed in the tip, providing practical value without adding bulk. However, the tip graphic (💡 TIP:) is slightly informal but does not hurt clarity.

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 the tool's complexity—5 parameters, nested objects for body, and a rich schema—the description is overly terse. It does not explain how to construct the body beyond a trivial example, nor does it clarify the calendarId requirement or what the tool returns (no output schema). The description leaves critical information to the schema, which is adequate but not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly without consulting the schema in detail.

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 80%, so most parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds a concrete example body: { name: 'New Name', color: 'lightBlue' }, which helps clarify the expected structure but does not explain any parameter that is not already described. It also lacks guidance on the calendarId parameter, though the schema provides a note about passing it under 'calendarId'.

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 clearly states 'Update a calendar' and expands with 'Updates a calendar's properties,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create-calendar and delete-calendar by focusing on updating existing calendars, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with update-calendar-event or update-specific-calendar-event beyond the resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The only constraint mentioned is 'Cannot update the default calendar's name,' which is a restriction but not usage context. The description does not explain prerequisites, such as needing to fetch the calendarId first, or scenarios where creating a new calendar would be more appropriate.

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