calendars_update_schedule

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already indicate (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.). It does not explain whether the update is a full replacement or partial, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects. The annotations cover some safety aspects, but the description contributes nothing extra.

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 a single, direct sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is also extremely brief, which limits its usefulness, but for conciseness alone it earns a 4.

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 4 parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description is minimally helpful. It does not explain what constitutes a 'schedule', what the rules field expects, whether the update is partial or full, or what the response contains. An agent would need to guess many details, making the definition incomplete for effective 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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (coverage 100%), so the schema already explains each field. The tool description does not add any additional nuance, such as how 'rules' should be structured or how timezone interacts with schedule. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('user availability schedule'), indicating a write operation on a schedule. However, it does not specify which aspects are updated (e.g., name, rules, timezone) or provide any differentiation from sibling tools like calendars_create_schedule or calendars_get_schedule_by_id. It is more specific than a tautology but still vague about the exact scope.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, when to prefer this over other schedule-related tools, or any exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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