update_calendar_event

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It provides API version, environment, and scope. However, it omits details like whether changes are reversible, if attendees are notified automatically despite the 'need_notification' parameter, or error conditions. The 'patch' nature is implied but not explicitly contrasted with full replacement.

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 concise sentence plus a scope requirement. It is front-loaded and efficient, though could benefit from a brief structured breakdown of key constraints.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, error handling, or behavior when optional fields are omitted. For a patch endpoint, it suffices for basic understanding but lacks completeness for complex scenarios.

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 69%, and the description adds no parameter-specific details beyond reinforcing partial update. The schema itself is fairly descriptive for many parameters, so the description provides marginal additional value. Uncovered parameters like 'reminders' lack context on format.

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 'Patch fields on an existing calendar event' which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes from siblings like create_calendar_event or delete_calendar_event by implying modification rather than creation or deletion.

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 advises 'Pass only the fields you want to change', which clarifies partial update behavior. It also mentions the required OAuth scope. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use (e.g., for creation).

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