update-calendar

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so description doesn't need to restate mutation. The description adds value by noting the restriction on default calendar name updates. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like required permissions, effect on read-only fields, or side effects from openWorldHint.

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 short but front-loaded with a confusing technical sentence. The tip is helpful and concise. With only two sentences, it could be restructured for clarity. Some words are wasted on the initial phrase.

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?

Given the complex input schema with many properties and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the full set of updatable fields. The openWorldHint suggests hidden behaviors, which are not addressed.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description provides a concrete example ({ name, color }) and highlights a constraint (cannot update default calendar name) not in schema. This adds moderate value beyond the schema, but does not clarify all parameters.

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?

Description clearly states 'Updates a calendar's properties' and provides a sample body. However, the initial phrase 'Update the navigation property calendars in me' is confusing and may mislead agents. Overall, the core purpose is communicated, but clarity is slightly diminished.

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 gives a restriction (cannot update default calendar name) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create-calendar or delete-calendar. No context about prerequisites or conditions is provided, limiting guidance.

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