update_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states that the operation updates an existing calendar, revealing minimal information about side effects, partial vs. full updates, required permissions, or the response. This is a significant gap for a data-modifying operation with no support from annotations.

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 six words, the description is short but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It contains no wasted words but also no meaningful content beyond what the tool's name already states. A well-structured description would front-load the purpose and then elaborate on parameters or behavior.

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?

For a mutating tool with three required parameters, one of which is a nested object, and no annotations or output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine what to pass in data, what id refers to, or what the update will affect. This falls far short of what is needed for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It names none of the three required parameters (campaignId, id, data) and gives no hints about their roles. The nested data object is entirely undocumented, leaving an agent with no semantic information beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and a clear resource ('calendar'), and the qualifier 'existing' distinguishes the operation from creation. This clearly identifies the tool's core function within the CRUD family of sibling tools. However, it lacks detail on what aspects of the calendar can be updated, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided. The description implies the tool is for modifying an existing calendar, but it does not state when to choose this over create_calendar or delete_calendar, nor any preconditions. The intended use case is inferable from the name and verb, but the description itself offers no direct guidance.

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