calendars_update_calendar

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

Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral nuance beyond those hints—it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to unspecified fields. Since it neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations, it offers minimal transparency beyond the structured metadata.

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 just two words, which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. While brevity is valued, a tool with 52 parameters and significant complexity needs at least a sentence describing the update scope or key fields. The description fails to provide any structural cues, making it less like a helpful summary and more like a placeholder.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (52 params, nested objects, enums) and the absence of an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the update does, which fields are commonly updated, or how the inputs relate to the calendar entity. An agent cannot reasonably understand the tool's purpose or edge cases from this description alone; it is entirely inadequate for effective selection and use.

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 42%, which is below the 50% threshold where the description must compensate. The description provides zero information about parameters, leaving the agent to rely on a schema that leaves many fields undocumented. With 52 parameters, including complex nested objects like recurring and lookBusyConfig, the lack of parameter guidance severely hampers correct invocation.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('Calendar'), which distinguishes it from create or delete calendar operations. However, it is entirely generic—it does not indicate which of the 52 calendar attributes can be modified, leaving the agent to inspect the full schema to infer scope. It is not a tautology like 'Process', but it lacks the specificity seen in high-quality definitions.

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 like calendars_create_calendar or calendars_update_calendar_resource. It does not state prerequisites, such as the need for an existing calendarId, nor does it mention any exclusions or sibling tools that might be more appropriate. The agent is left without direction on selection criteria.

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