calendar_updateEvent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it updates events and supports attachments, but omits critical traits such as attachments replacing existing ones, side effects, or reversibility. This leaves the agent under-informed about a mutation tool.

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?

At two sentences, the description is extremely concise with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately adds a useful capability note.

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?

The tool is complex with 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description provides minimal context, failing to mention required parameters, replacement behavior for attachments, or return values. This is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's usage.

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 input schema provides descriptions for 78% of parameters, so it already carries most of the semantic weight. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond mentioning attachments, which the schema already covers in depth. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('existing calendar event'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like calendar_createEvent, calendar_getEvent, and calendar_deleteEvent. Mentioning Meet and Drive attachments adds useful 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calendar_createEvent or calendar_respondToEvent. It lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or context about update scenarios.

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