update_calendar_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals the automatic conflict check, the refusal behavior with conflict:true and conflicting events, and the force bypass. This is substantial transparency for a mutation tool, though it does not cover permissions or what happens on successful update.

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?

Two tightly written sentences. The purpose is front-loaded and the conflict-check/force behavior is explained without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The conflict behavior is well covered, but the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not describe success return values, time format expectations, or what happens when only one time is changed, leaving some important context missing.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for startTime, endTime, and force by explaining their interaction in conflict checking, but leaves body, subject, location, and eventId without any descriptive help beyond their names.

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 opens with 'Update an existing calendar event', which is a specific verb plus resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_calendar_event and cancel_calendar_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 concrete guidance on when force:true may be used ('only pass force:true after the user has explicitly approved double-booking') and explains the conflict-check behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with create/cancel tools, but the usage context is clear enough.

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