Update calendar note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: sending 'from' without 'to' moves the whole note while preserving its duration. It does not explain what makes the tool destructive (blanking text), which the schema covers only for 'text'.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the partial-update rule is front-loaded. The second sentence ('Sending from without to moves the whole note...') is slightly awkward to parse but carries real information, so it earns its place.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema and a destructive hint, the description covers the trickiest semantic (from/to interplay) but leaves the agent guessing on field-level effects of color/title changes and on what a successful update returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 6 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by explaining the from/to interaction, which the schema does not. It says nothing about 'color', 'title', or the date format for 'to', leaving several parameters documented only by bare type/pattern constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Changes a calendar note'), which clearly separates it from update_post, update_page, and update_campaign siblings. It is slightly weakened by the generic verb 'Changes' rather than something like 'partially updates,' but an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

'Send only what changes' gives useful partial-update guidance, implying this is a patch-style operation rather than a full replace. However, it never states when to use this versus postfjord_create_calendar_note or postfjord_delete_calendar_note, nor that a noteId must first come from list/create (that is only in the schema).

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