calmesh_manage_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the operation returns which parts succeeded and failed, and explicitly mentions the required OAuth scope ('full'). It does not detail reversibility or atomicity, but the core behavioral trait of partial success 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and key behavior.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it does, key behaviors, and an important prerequisite (scope). It could mention prerequisites like the calendar existing, but the core information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it.

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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning by grouping the parameters into logical update operations (rename, timezone, connections), but it does not go beyond what the schema descriptions already imply. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a calendar'), enumerating the exact types of updates (rename, change timezone, add/remove connections, set write-back). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_calendar and list_calendars.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to update an existing calendar) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It does provide a usage constraint (requires 'full' scope), but lacks clear guidance on choosing this tool over siblings.

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