update_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It only states 'Update,' implying mutation, but fails to disclose side effects, error handling (e.g., missing event_id), auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the update is atomic. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 information without any extraneous words. Every sentence adds value: the first identifies the action and resource, the second explains the partial update pattern.

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?

Despite a fully documented input schema, the description lacks completeness for a mutation tool: no mention of success/failure responses, error cases (e.g., event not found), idempotency, or concurrency behavior. The output schema is absent, so description should cover more context.

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 100% with each parameter described individually (e.g., 'New start time in ISO 8601 format'). The description adds the crucial context that only provided fields are changed, reinforcing the partial update semantics beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 identifies the verb 'Update' and resource 'existing calendar event', distinguishing it from siblings like create_event and delete_event. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with read-only tools like list_events or search_events, nor does it specify 'partial update' explicitly, though 'Only provide fields you want to change' hints at it.

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 states 'Only provide fields you want to change,' which implies partial updates and guides when to use the tool. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for a typical use case.

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