manage-event

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

The description transparently discloses that the tool is destructive (corroborating annotations with 'destructiveHint: true'), explains the PATCH semantics for update with dryRun preview, and details what each action does. It also notes the unreliability of the accept verb, adding valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 a single dense paragraph that covers all necessary information, but could benefit from structuring with bullet points or separate sentences for each action to improve scannability. It is concise overall, with no filler, but slightly unstructured.

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 tool's complexity (17 parameters, 4 actions, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete: it explains each action's effect, parameter applicability, return types, and the lack of accept support. It also covers the dryRun preview behavior. No gaps are apparent.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains that update uses PATCH with partial replacement, introduces the dryRun parameter's purpose, and scopes each parameter to specific actions (e.g., 'action=update only'). This provides crucial behavioral context beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 manages existing calendar events with four specific actions (update, decline, cancel, delete) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'create-event' by noting there is no accept action. The verb 'manage' combined with the action list and parameter scope provides precise identification of the tool's purpose.

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 provides strong usage context: it clarifies that accept is not supported and redirects to the Outlook UI, and implies that for creating events a different tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives for specific actions (e.g., cancel vs. delete) or mention prerequisites like ownership for cancel.

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