calendars_edit_appointment

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (it's a mutation) and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't mention side effects, such as triggering automations (referenced by toNotify parameter) or the interplay of rrule with ignoreFreeSlotValidation. Given the annotations are present, this minimal addition slightly exceeds zero but is still very thin.

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?

'Update Appointment' is technically concise but under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It's a two-word tautology of the tool name. It doesn't front-load any useful information and fails to earn its place as a description.

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?

With 16 parameters, complex logic around recurrence rules, slot validation, and meeting locations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It provides zero context about the operation's scope, prerequisites, or return behavior. Agents have no clue about the complexity involved, making this tool almost unusable from a description standpoint.

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 covers 94% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds nothing about parameters, but since the schema is comprehensive, the agent can rely on that. The description does not clarify any parameter meaning beyond what's already in the schema.

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 'Update Appointment' clearly states the action (update) and resource (appointment). However, it is extremely generic and does not differentiate from sibling tools like calendars_create_appointment or calendars_get_appointment. It lacks any scope or details that would help an agent distinguish it from other calendar operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives exist. The description is a bare statement with no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. An agent would have no way to know if this is the right tool versus calendars_edit_block_slot or calendars_update_schedule.

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