update_calendar

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

The description indicates the tool updates existing calendar properties but does not disclose side effects such as authorization requirements, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or what happens if the calendar does not exist. Since there are no annotations, the description shoulders the burden of transparency, yet it omits these behavioral details.

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, consisting of two sentences that list the affected properties and provide concrete usage examples. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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?

While the description covers the 'what' and 'when', it lacks information about the return value or success/failure behavior. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing what the function returns (e.g., updated calendar object, status code, or nothing). This omission reduces its completeness in a real-world invocation context.

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 already provides a description for each parameter (e.g., 'Optional: New calendar color in hex format'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add extra semantic nuance beyond restating the property names and giving usage examples, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the parameter meaning.

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 purpose: 'Update an existing calendar's properties' and lists the specific properties (display name, description, color, timezone). It also provides example user intents ('rename calendar', 'change calendar color') that map directly to this action, distinguishing it from creation, deletion, or listing operations.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this when user asks to "rename calendar", "change calendar color", or "update calendar properties"'. This provides clear guidance on when to select this function over alternatives like create_calendar, delete_calendar, or list_calendars.

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