Move an event to another calendar

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

Annotations already indicate mutation and destructiveness, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it changes the organizer calendar, preserves the event id, requires writer access to both calendars, restricts which event types can be moved, and notes that send_updates=all notifies guests. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone convey, with no contradiction.

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 four sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, immediately clarifies the relationship to update_event, and then packs restrictions, permissions, and side effects into the remaining sentences. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutating tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it defines the operation, states constraints on eligible events, names the required permissions, explains the attendee-notification side effect, and routes to the correct sibling tool. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the meaning of destination_calendar_id and send_updates, but does not add new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Moves an event to a different calendar') and clarifies the key semantic that the organizer calendar changes while the event id stays the same. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from update_event, so an agent can reliably tell this tool apart from its closest sibling.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance and names the alternative: rescheduling to another time is update_event, not this. It also states hard constraints (no Out of Office, Focus Time, working-location, or birthday events; only organizers can move events with attendees), which lets the agent decide whether this tool is appropriate before calling it.

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