update-specific-calendar-event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds two specific behavioral warnings: attendees are entirely replaced (not incrementally updated) and email addresses must not be guessed but looked up via list-users. This is valuable beyond the annotation info and directly addresses common pitfalls.

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 extremely concise, using a short preamble and two front-loaded warnings. Every sentence carries critical information. It is well structured for an agent to quickly grasp essential cautions.

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 tool, the description covers the two most critical gotchas (attendee replacement and email lookup). It does not mention partial vs. full update behavior or response format, but neither is required given the destructiveHint and no output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct usage.

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?

With 83% schema description coverage, the schema thoroughly documents all parameters. The description adds no top-level parameter details; the attendee warning refers to a nested body property, not the required parameters. It does not compensate for any missing schema coverage, but given high coverage, a middle score is appropriate.

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 specific calendar event' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like create-specific-calendar-event or get-specific-calendar-event, but does not explicitly differentiate from the generic update-calendar-event sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description provides parameter-level tips (e.g., use list-users for email addresses, attendee list replacement) but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like update-calendar-event or create-specific-calendar-event. There is no mention of selection criteria or exclusions.

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