update-my-calendar-permission

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral constraint beyond the annotations: only the role property is writable, and changing other properties requires delete/recreate. Annotations (readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:true) already indicate mutation and destructive potential, but the description adds the specific 'only role' limitation, which is valuable context.

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 well-organized with a TIP section and uses a compact enumeration of roles. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy. It is slightly dense but appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (nested body object, 5 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core purpose, writable fields, allowed values, and associated workflow. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists and the description focuses on the key usage constraints, which is sufficient.

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 coverage is high (80%), so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context beyond the schema by explicitly listing the allowed role enum values ('read' | 'write' | 'delegateWithoutPrivateEventAccess' | 'delegateWithPrivateEventAccess') and clarifying that only role is writable, which helps the agent understand the body parameter's 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?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Update my calendar permission' and immediately clarifies 'Changes the role (permission level) granted to an existing share recipient or delegate.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-my-calendar-permission, delete-my-calendar-permission, and list-my-calendar-permissions.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use and alternatives: 'Only the role property is writable — to change the recipient's email or other properties, delete and recreate via delete-my-calendar-permission + create-my-calendar-permission. Get the permission id via list-my-calendar-permissions.' This names exact alternative tools and workflows.

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