update-my-calendar-permission

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

The description mentions that only the role property is writable, which is useful. However, given destructiveHint: true, there is no elaboration on potential side effects or risks (e.g., revoking access). The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations but not enough for a mutation tool with destructive implications.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a tip, all front-loaded with the core purpose. Every piece of information is relevant and 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 tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description explains the main use case but lacks details on how the role interacts with allowedRoles, error conditions, or what the response looks like. The schema has a complex 'allowedRoles' property that is 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?

The schema coverage is 75%, and the description adds value by clarifying that only the role property is writable and showing the expected body format. This helps avoid confusion with other writable fields in 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 clearly states it updates calendar permissions, and the tip specifies it changes the role of an existing share recipient or delegate. It distinguishes from create and delete siblings by explaining the workflow for changing other properties.

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 tip explicitly states when to use this tool (change role) and when not to (change email/or other properties, in which case delete and recreate). It also advises to get the permission ID via list-my-calendar-permissions.

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