clio_update_calendar_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' but does not mention whether fields are partially updated, if any permissions are required, or whether the operation is reversible. The examples hint at field semantics but omit broader behavioral traits.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous information. It front-loads the verb and resource and uses parenthetical examples efficiently.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on return values, partial update behavior, authorization requirements, and how to identify the entry, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, forcing the description to add meaning. The examples 'reschedule', 'rename', and 'relocate' map to start_at/end_at, summary, and location respectively, providing some semantic value. However, the required 'id' parameter and 'description' are not addressed, leaving gaps in compensation.

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 the specific verb 'Update' and clearly identifies the resource as 'calendar entry', adding examples (reschedule, rename, relocate) that clarify the scope of modifications. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like create/delete/find by focusing on modification, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as create or delete. The description merely states what the tool does without context on prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where it is preferred.

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