calendars_update_calendar_resource

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention idempotency, side effects, permissions, or partial-update semantics, and it doesn't clarify what 'update' entails. While it doesn't contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), it is entirely uninformative.

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 brief, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It provides no meaningful content, leaving the agent without necessary context. While it is short, it doesn't earn its place as it delivers no information beyond the tool name.

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 has 10 parameters, an enum, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It offers no overview of what the update operation does, the types of resources (rooms/equipments), or any required versus optional fields. An agent cannot reliably determine how to construct a valid request.

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 tool description says nothing about any parameters. The schema covers 70% of parameters (7 of 10) with descriptions, but the remaining 30% (name, isActive, description) lack schema docs and are not addressed in the tool description. The description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides, and it fails to compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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 Calendar Resource' simply restates the tool name without adding any specifics about what resources are, what attributes can be updated, or how it differs from sibling tools like calendars_create_calendar_resource or calendars_delete_calendar_resource. It is a tautology of the name, providing no additional clarity.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, required fields, or conditions under which an update is appropriate. An agent has no context for when to choose this over create/delete operations.

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