update_event

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

Annotations already declare the tool is not read-only, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: partial updates, restrictions on holds and external iCal events, and calendar_id resolution. However, it does not describe the response/return value, which is relevant given no output schema.

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 concise with 5 sentences, front-loading the core action. It is well-structured but could be slightly improved by grouping related information. No unnecessary content.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key usage scenarios and constraints but misses details on the 'recurrence_rule' parameter and does not describe the response format. Slightly incomplete for a complex tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining partial update semantics, calendar_id optional behavior, and constraints on holds and external events. However, it mentions 'location' which is not in the schema, potentially causing confusion. Overall, it adds value beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Reschedule or edit an event' and lists specific fields that can be changed. It differentiates from siblings by noting that holds cannot be edited via this tool and should use confirm_event/release_event instead, and that external iCal events are read-only.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to move an appointment to a new time or update its details.' It also tells when not to use (holds, external iCal) and suggests alternative tools. Additionally, it advises to 'Provide only the fields you want to change,' indicating partial update semantics.

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