cal_update_event

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds the critical behavioral trait 'Requires user confirmation before calling', which is not covered by annotations. It also explains the return structure. This is good supplementary context.

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, with a clear primary sentence followed by brief parameter explanations. No redundant information. Every sentence serves a 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 presence of an output schema (mentioned), the description adequately covers the return format (dict with 'id'). It addresses key usage constraints (user confirmation, calendar ID format) and provides an example for the fields parameter. No critical gaps.

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 0%. The description provides meaning for 'calendar' (accepted values: 'user', 'hermes', or full Google Calendar ID) and 'fields' (dict of event fields with example). 'event_id' is not described but it is a straightforward required parameter. The description adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Patch specific fields of a calendar event', which clearly specifies the verb (patch) and resource (calendar event). It distinguishes from siblings like cal_create_event (create) and cal_delete_event (delete) by focusing on updating existing events.

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 the tool should be used for partial updates, though it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. It mentions a prerequisite (user confirmation) but no explicit when-not or alternative guidance. Given no sibling for full update, it is sufficiently clear.

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