Raw Google Calendar API call

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the Bearer token is injected automatically, GET is the default method, non-calendar/v3 paths are rejected before sending, and PUT replaces unspecified fields with defaults. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking an escape hatch.

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 dense and includes a long example list, but every sentence contributes safety or routing information. The purpose is front-loaded and the dangerous PUT caveat is saved for the end, where it can be read as a warning.

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, open-world raw API tool with no output schema, the description covers URL construction, authorization, method behavior, path validation, and when to prefer a typed tool. It does not explicitly describe the raw response format or error behavior, but those are strongly implied by the tool's purpose.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational semantics the schema lacks: query strings are allowed, paths are relative to https://www.googleapis.com and must remain under calendar/v3, and method defaults to GET.

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 opens by defining the tool as an 'Escape hatch' for directly calling any Google Calendar API v3 path, with concrete examples such as events.quickAdd and colors. This distinguishes it from the typed sibling tools rather than restating the name.

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?

It explicitly states this tool is for 'requests the typed tools don't cover' and directs users to prefer 'update_event' for PATCH semantics when possible. The namespace restriction also tells the agent which calls will be rejected, reinforcing when the tool is appropriate.

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