calendar_update_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a major side effect—sending notifications to attendees—and the confirmation gate required to proceed. It could mention more about partial-update behavior or auth requirements, but the disclosed behavior is material and not inferable from the schema alone.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and then highlights the critical confirmation requirement. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the core purpose and one important side effect, but omits return-value expectations, partial-update semantics, and permission requirements. The schema covers parameter details, so the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 describes all 11 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful conditional semantics for the confirm parameter—requiring true when attendees exist or are added—which goes beyond the schema's generic wording. Other parameters remain schema-defined, but that is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 Google Calendar event, using a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like calendar_create_event, calendar_delete_event, calendar_move_event, and calendar_rsvp.

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 specifies a key usage requirement: confirm must be true when attendees exist or are being added, because update notifications will be sent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context and sibling tool names make the appropriate use fairly clear.

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