trmnl_update_room_booking_calendar

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

The description adds a useful authorization caution ('Run only within the user-authorized scope') and repeats that the operation changes remote state. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds some context but not much beyond the safety profile already structured.

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 compact, front-loads the action, and groups calendar-type-specific field rules before giving the endpoint and authorization warning. Most sentences earn their place, though the generic 'Changes remote state or starts work' line is slightly redundant with the annotations.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description provides the key field semantics for the nested body and notes authorization scope. Remaining gaps include partial-update behavior and the profile parameter, but these are minor 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?

With schema description coverage at 33%, the description compensates well by explaining which body fields apply to iCal calendars versus Google/Microsoft calendars, including that provider calendars keep their provider name and use override_name. It still does not fully document types, nullability, or the profile parameter, but it adds substantial semantic value beyond the 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 states the specific action (change a calendar) and the endpoint clarifies that it updates an existing room booking calendar by ID. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as create, delete, or refetch calendar operations, but the purpose is still clear.

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 by 'Change a calendar' and the PATCH endpoint, and the description gives provider-specific guidance for iCal versus Google/Microsoft calendars. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of the sibling create, delete, or refetch calendar tools.

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