Update Event

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

Beyond minimal annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: only provided fields are changed, clear_location/clear_notes/clear_url explicitly blank fields, attendees is an alias for invitees with deduplication. However, it omits details about return value, side effects, or authentication requirements.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loads the main action. It is well-structured but could be improved by grouping related parameter notes.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, no schema descriptions) and the existence of many sibling tools, the description leaves gaps. It does not clarify behavior for most parameters (e.g., null vs omission), nor does it mention prerequisites or return values despite having an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining clear_* booleans and the attendees/invitees alias. However, it does not explain the semantics of parameters like end, url, notes, start, title, all_day, location, event_id, or invitees beyond their basic types.

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 'Update an existing event by UID (only provided fields are changed)', specifying the verb (update), resource (existing event by UID), and scope (partial update). This distinguishes it from calendar_create_event and calendar_delete_event.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calendar_create_event or calendar_get_event. It does not mention context such as prerequisites or when not to use it.

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