Update AddEvent Calendar

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

Beyond annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds specific error behavior (404 when calendar_id not found), return format (updated calendar object as JSON), and partial-update behavior. This gives the agent practical expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and well-organized into Summary, Args, Returns, and Error Handling sections. Every sentence adds operational value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with fully described schema and good annotations, the description supplies the missing context: partial update behavior, return type, and error handling. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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 already provides 100% field-level descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meta-semantics: only provided fields are changed, calendar_id identifies the target, and other fields map to addevent_create_calendar. This is useful guidance 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 clearly states the tool 'Updates an existing calendar', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like addevent_create_calendar and addevent_delete_calendar by emphasizing 'existing' and partial-update semantics.

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?

It provides clear usage context: calendar_id is required and only provided fields are changed, so callers should include only what's changing. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the 'existing calendar' wording and sibling tools make the intended use evident.

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