update-calendar-event

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

Despite annotations indicating a destructive mutation, the description adds crucial behavioral context beyond them: partial-update semantics, the fact that attendees and cc lists are replaced rather than merged, and the need to call get-calendar-event first to preserve existing attendees. It also discloses the return value as a success message.

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 front-loaded with purpose and partial-update semantics, then uses a clearly marked IMPORTANT section and concise examples. Every sentence adds useful information for a complex 14-parameter mutation tool.

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 complex destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main operational pitfalls: partial updates, list replacement, prerequisite event retrieval, and time-field pairing. It does not address permissions, recurrence-series behavior, or timezone edge cases, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents individual parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially for attendees/cc replacement and the requirement to provide both startedAt and endedAt when changing time, though it does not explain several other parameters such as recurrenceRule or alarms.

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: update a Dooray calendar event. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as create-calendar-event, delete-calendar-event, and get-calendar-event without needing to inspect schemas.

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 gives clear usage conditions: only provided fields change, attendees/cc require fetching the event first, and time changes require both startedAt and endedAt. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus create/delete, which keeps it below a 5.

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