calendar_v3_move_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool moves an event, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits such as required permissions (e.g., write access to both calendars), side effects (e.g., notifications sent), error conditions (e.g., if calendars don't exist), or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('move a calendar event') and includes the API version context. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (a mutation operation with 3 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or error handling, nor does it explain return values. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it safely and effectively.

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 100%, with all three parameters (event_id, source_calendar_id, destination_calendar_id) clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, format details, or constraints). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 clearly states the action ('move') and resource ('calendar event'), specifying it's from one calendar to another. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_event, delete_event, or update_event by focusing on relocation rather than creation, deletion, or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., it's less clear how it differs from freebusy_query or quick_add in purpose).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing permissions on both calendars), exclusions (e.g., not for recurring events), or comparisons to siblings like update_event (which might handle calendar changes differently). Usage is implied only by the action described, with no explicit context or alternatives stated.

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