update-calendar

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's mutation nature is consistent. It adds the behavioral constraint that the default calendar's name cannot be updated. It does not disclose permission requirements or reversibility, but the annotation covers the destructive aspect.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose. The tip provides an example and a caveat without fluff. Highly concise.

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 tool is a straightforward update operation with strong schema coverage. The description gives a concrete example and a key limitation, but does not mention return values or side effects. Given the absence of an output schema, a brief note on response behavior would improve completeness, but the current level is adequate for an update tool.

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 80%, already documenting most parameters. The description adds an example body ('{ name: 'New Name', color: 'lightBlue' }') and the constraint on default calendar name, providing practical usage context. No deeper param semantics are added beyond the schema.

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 'Update a calendar' and 'Updates a calendar's properties,' clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update-calendar-event by targeting calendar-level properties. The example body further clarifies the scope.

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 usage for modifying calendar properties via the example body. It notes the constraint 'Cannot update the default calendar's name,' which is a usage exclusion. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this tool versus other update tools.

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