update-my-calendar-permission

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

Description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that only the role property is writable (other body fields ignored) and provides an alternative workflow for changing other fields. Annotations already indicate destructiveness (destructiveHint=true), and the description does not contradict this. It adds value by explaining the constraint and the delete+recreate path.

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 moderately concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The tip block is organized but the misleading role list adds unnecessary length and confusion. It is not overly verbose, but the inaccurate enumeration wastes space and could mislead.

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?

Covers the core workflow, the writable-only-role constraint, and the alternative for changing other properties. It does not describe the response (no output schema) but that is not expected. The main gap is the incomplete role list, which undermines completeness for valid use cases. The confirm gate is described in the schema, so that is covered.

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 80% and the schema already documents parameters, but the description actively misleads: it lists only four role values ('read', 'write', 'delegateWithoutPrivateEventAccess', 'delegateWithPrivateEventAccess') while the schema allows eight enum values including 'none', 'freeBusyRead', 'limitedRead', and 'custom'. This false restriction could prevent an agent from using valid roles. The statement 'Only the role property is writable' is helpful, but the role list error is a significant negative.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Update my calendar permission') with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself by mentioning 'existing share recipient or delegate' and contrasting with delete+create for other properties. It differentiates from sibling tools like delete-my-calendar-permission and list-my-calendar-permissions.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (update an existing permission) and when not (to change email or other properties, delete and recreate). It also provides the prerequisite of getting the permission id via list-my-calendar-permissions. No ambiguity.

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