update_event_raw

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It warns that manual iCal formatting is required and that it should only be used with complete data, implying a full replacement. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., etag mismatch, invalid iCal) or explicitly state the update is destructive/overwriting. This is moderate coverage, but lacks detail on edge cases and failure modes.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the 'ADVANCED' flag and the core purpose. It then immediately provides the usage alternative and condition. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the purpose and usage guidance well, but omits important context for a complex raw-update tool: it does not explain the role of the etag, what happens on conflict, or the response format. Without an output schema or annotations, the description leaves gaps that could affect correct usage, but it is not severely incomplete as it does address the primary decision to use it.

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 each parameter is explained in the schema (event_url, event_etag, updated_ical_data). The tool description reinforces that the iCal must be complete and pre-formatted, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description provides no extra parameter insights beyond that.

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 updates an event with raw iCal data and distinguishes itself from the simpler update_event tool. It specifies the resource (event) and the mechanism (raw iCal), and the 'ADVANCED' prefix signals its specialized nature. This fully clarifies what it does and how it differs from its sibling.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use update_event for simple field updates, and only use this tool when you have complete pre-formatted iCal data or need advanced iCal properties. The alternative tool is named directly, and the conditions for choosing this tool are clear and actionable.

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