calendar_update_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose that approval is required, which is a non-obvious operational trait, but it leaves the approval flow, return behavior, and partial-update semantics unspecified. This is a minimal but non-empty disclosure.

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 a single sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. Every word adds context, and the parenthetical approval note is compact and informative.

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 schema covers field semantics, but the description lacks details about the approval mechanism, the return value, and whether unspecified fields are preserved. Since there is no output schema and this is a mutation tool with an approval dependency, the description leaves important operational context unspecified.

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 83%, and the schema already documents parameter semantics, including the required event_id and ISO 8601 formats for times. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it neither enhances nor conflicts with the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('update') and a specific resource ('existing calendar event'), clearly distinguishing it from create/delete/query sibling tools. The parenthetical 'requires approval' adds a distinctive operational constraint. No vague or misleading language.

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 implies use for modifying an existing event and notes the approval prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention calendar_create_event for new events or how approval should be obtained.

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