skylight_update_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Set' indicates mutation, but it does not disclose whether active_calendars replaces the full active set, what an empty array means, or any side effects on the connected account/source calendars.

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?

One short sentence with front-loaded action and object, no redundant wording or filler. It communicates the core operation efficiently without repeating schema fields.

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 3-parameter mutation with no annotations or output schema, this definition is incomplete. The agent is left without enough context about what id and frameId refer to, whether the operation is a full replacement, or how this relates to connected/source calendars.

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 33%, covering active_calendars, while id and frameId are undocumented. The description adds 'sub-calendars' and 'connected account' but never maps these concepts to the parameters, so it does not compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set which sub-calendars of a connected account are active.' This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from list/default-calendar siblings, though it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast with skylight_set_default_calendar.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like skylight_set_default_calendar or skylight_list_calendars. The description implies connected-account calendar management but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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