calendar_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention the need for alias credentials, which is a key auth requirement, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as idempotency, partial vs full update, or potential side effects. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value: the verb, the resource, the protocol note, and the credential requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides the essential context (update calendar for alias, needs credentials) but does not elaborate on update semantics, field applicability, or error conditions. The schema covers parameter details, so the description is minimally sufficient but not 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meanings beyond what the schema already provides, though it does reinforce that alias_username and alias_password are required for authentication. No extra semantics are introduced.

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 specifies the action 'Update' and the resource 'calendar for an alias (CalDAV)', distinguishing it from sibling calendar tools like calendar_create, calendar_get, and calendar_delete. The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context: the tool updates a calendar for an alias and explicitly requires alias credentials. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives or exclude cases, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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