update_calendar

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., side effects, permissions, reversibility) but also does not contradict the annotations. The bar is lower due to annotations, yet the description provides minimal incremental disclosure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates three main operations without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 6 parameters fully described in the schema and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not detail potential impacts on existing reservations or return behavior, and there is no output schema. A bit more context would improve completeness.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description mentions 'block dates' and 'minimum nights' but does not add relationship or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function with specific verbs ('Block or unblock dates, set minimum nights, or update availability') and identifies the resource ('a listing'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_calendar that focus on reading data.

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?

Usage is implied through the action verbs, but the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_calendar, nor does it state any exclusions. It provides clear context but no direct comparison or when-not-to-use guidance.

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