calendars_edit_block_slot

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true) operation, but the description adds no contextual behavior. It does not disclose what happens to the slot, whether it affects appointments, or any restrictions (e.g., that calendarId and assignedUserId are mutually exclusive). The description provides zero behavioral disclosure beyond the minimal action.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It lacks any structure, front-loading, or prioritization of key information. A well-crafted description would at least state the resource and key constraints in a clear opening sentence.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what a Block Slot is, the meaning of the parameters (even though schema provides some), the effect of updating, or any side effects. An agent would have no confidence in how to call this correctly. The lack of output schema makes it worse.

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 input schema documents all 7 parameters with at least basic descriptions (e.g., 'Either calendarId or assignedUserId can be set, not both.'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description need not repeat parameter details. However, the schema descriptions are terse and the tool description adds nothing, so 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 'Update Block Slot' is a tautology that simply restates the tool name. It fails to define what a Block Slot is, what updating it entails, or how it differs from sibling tools like calendars_create_block_slot or calendars_get_blocked_slots. No specific verb-resource clarity beyond the obvious.

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 versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing block slot to modify, or how it relates to creating or deleting slots. The agent receives no direction on selecting this tool among the many calendar siblings.

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