update_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It says only that properties are updated, disclosing nothing about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, or how omitted fields are treated. The only notable caveat, the timezone issue, lives in the schema rather than the description.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the action and affected fields, the second lists trigger phrases. Front-loaded and free of padding, though the trigger-phrase sentence could be tightened.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what and the when but omits behavioral context (permissions, side effects, how partial updates behave). Adequate to invoke, but gaps remain.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the same field names already documented in the schema and adds no formatting, constraints, or semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing calendar's properties') and enumerates the mutable fields (display name, description, color, timezone). It is clear and distinct from event/contact/todo siblings by the 'calendar' resource, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast against.

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?

It gives concrete trigger phrases ('rename calendar', 'change calendar color', 'update calendar properties') that tell an agent when to reach for this tool. However, it offers no when-not conditions and does not point to alternatives such as delete_calendar or make_calendar.

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