update_calendar_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the patch nature and required scope but omits details about side effects like notifications, validation, or error handling. More transparency is needed for 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?

The description is concise at two sentences, with no superfluous information. The first sentence states purpose and scope, the second gives usage guidance, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description lacks details on return values, error conditions, and what happens to fields not passed. It provides minimal but adequate context for a simple update operation.

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 description adds the usage pattern 'Pass only the fields you want to change' but does not provide additional meaning beyond what is already in the input schema. With schema description coverage at 69%, the description does not compensate significantly, so a score of 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 'Patch fields on an existing calendar event' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_calendar_event' and 'delete_calendar_event' by focusing on updating an existing event.

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 implies usage through 'Pass only the fields you want to change' and mentions the required scope. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use create vs update) or provide context about limitations.

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