reschedule_event

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

Annotations declare mutating and non-destructive, but the description adds rich behavior: it preserves title/attendees/location/video link, defaults notify=True which emails attendees, and explains how recurring occurrences are handled. This goes well beyond 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 packs all necessary information into a tight paragraph. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then parameter sourcing, special cases, format, preservation, notification, and return. Every sentence adds value, with no 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, a recurring-meeting edge case, and notification side effects, the description is complete. It even notes the return format, despite having an output schema. No gaps are apparent.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains every parameter: where to get connection_id, calendar_id, event_id (including provider_event_id), format for start_iso/end_iso, and the notify default and effect. This is exemplary compensation for a bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reschedule one event to a new time window' and frames it as the 'core move this call' action. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'Only the time changes' and preserving other fields, making it clear this is not create/cancel.

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 explicit context on when to use: it tells where to source parameters (connection_id from list_connections, etc.) and handles recurring meetings. It implies when-not by stating only time changes, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for other modifications.

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