calendar_event_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that alias credentials are required, which is already captured by the schema parameter descriptions. It does not explain the effect of updating (e.g., whether ical is required, what happens when omitted, or whether calendar_id moves the event), nor any other runtime 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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Update a calendar event') and includes the key prerequisite ('Requires alias credentials'). Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what aspects of an event can be updated (only ical and calendar_id are in the schema, but this is not mentioned), the semantics of updating without ical, or any success/failure indicators. The agent is left to infer behavior from the schema, which is incomplete for an update operation.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, with clear explanations for ical, calendar_id, alias_password, and alias_username. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 action ('Update') and the resource ('calendar event'), and scopes it to 'for an alias (CalDAV)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_event_create, calendar_event_get, and calendar_event_delete, as well as calendar_update (which updates a calendar, not an event).

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 context ('for an alias (CalDAV)') and notes the authentication requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The name and sibling set make the primary use case obvious, but no explicit guidance is given.

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