calendars_edit_group

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Update'. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description does not add anything about side effects, required permissions, or what specifically changes. It neither contradicts the annotations nor enriches them, so it offers minimal added value.

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?

Running at just two words, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It does not form a complete sentence and provides no useful content. While it is short, it does not earn its place because it conveys almost no information that an agent would need.

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 four required parameters, a low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description must carry substantial contextual weight. It fails to do so — it does not explain what the tool does beyond 'Update Group', does not clarify that all fields are required, and does not describe any update behavior or constraints. This is far too incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 only 25% — only groupId has a description ('Group Id'). The other three parameters (name, description, slug) have no schema descriptions. The tool description 'Update Group' does not explain any parameter semantics, nor does it compensate for the low coverage. An agent would have no additional information about what name, description, or slug mean or how they relate to the update.

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 Group' names a verb and a resource, but it is vague — it does not specify 'calendar group' or mention any fields to update. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the specificity needed to clearly distinguish this from other group-related tools. A minimal viable statement, but not a clear one.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calendars_create_calendar_group or calendars_validate_groups_slug. The description gives no context, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. No usage guidance is provided at all.

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