update_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'columns are validated against the table' and that the tool 'stamped as the PBI_Calendar table annotation (the Wave R convention)' due to missing TOM objects. It does not mention side effects on dependent time intelligence objects, reversibility, or error behavior.

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 concise: the first sentence gives the core action, and the second sentence provides a brief implementation note. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the FLAG note is somewhat tangential to the main purpose.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides a moderate level of completeness. It explains the core behavior and validation, but omits details about sessionId, effects on dependent objects, and explicit exclusions or alternatives. It is sufficient for basic tool selection but not fully 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 already covers 75% of parameters, and the description adds meaning beyond it: 'columns are validated against the table' and clarifies the roles of primaryColumn and associatedColumns as the new primary date column and replacement period-column group. sessionId remains undocumented, but the description still adds valuable context.

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 a specific action: 'Update a table's calendar definition' and details exactly what can be changed: 'change the primary date column and/or replace the associated period-column group'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_date_table or mark_as_date_table.

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 implies a clear use case: modifying an existing calendar definition. The FLAG note adds context about the implementation approach. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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