Update Event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It transparently communicates that the update is in-place, that omitted fields are left unchanged, and that clear flags are necessary to remove values. This is valuable but not exhaustive—it does not cover recurrence handling, identifier precedence, or error behavior, which are relevant for a tool with 18 parameters.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the main purpose, and every clause adds value. It is concise without sacrificing essential update semantics, making it well-structured for quick agent consumption.

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 (18 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too brief. It omits critical context like how to choose an identifier, the meaning of scope, and what 'in place' means for recurring events. This leaves an agent underinformed about key operational details.

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 description coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain most parameters, especially the identifier trio (eventIdentifier, externalIdentifier, calendarItemIdentifier) or scope/occurrenceDate. It only indirectly references clear flags. This is insufficient for a schema with 18 parameters and no descriptions for 15 of them.

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 event in place, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create or delete by emphasizing 'existing' and 'in place'. The added detail 'Omitted fields are left unchanged' further clarifies its patch-like behavior.

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 offers clear usage context: use when you need to modify an existing event, with omitted fields preserved. It also provides key guidance on using clear flags to remove specific fields. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or mention required identifiers like eventIdentifier, so it stops short of a 5.

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