Update Calendar Event

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags mutation, and the description adds meaningful partial-update semantics ('only the fields you specify are changed'), which is valuable behavioral information. It does not mention side effects like notifications to attendees, but the annotation lowers the burden and the core behavior is disclosed.

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 short sentences convey the essential behavior with no filler. The partial-update semantics are front-loaded, which is the most useful information for an agent.

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 schema fully documents parameters and the destructiveHint annotation signals caution, the description covers the core behavioral contract. It lacks explicit mention of return values or side effects, but the output schema is absent and annotations already flag destructiveness.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover all fields, so the description's main contribution is clarifying that omitted parameters retain their existing values—an important semantic distinction from other update endpoints. This adds meaning beyond the schema, especially for optional fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('existing calendar event'), clearly distinguishing it from creation tools like create_calendar_event. It also communicates the partial-update semantics up front, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_calendar_event or appointment group update tools. The phrase 'existing calendar event' implicitly excludes creation, but there is no explicit comparison or 'use X instead' instruction.

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