Update calendar entry

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose the write nature and the two-step preview/confirm safety flow, which is valuable. However, it does not address permissions, reversibility, what happens to unspecified fields, or return 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose then the workflow hint. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more explicit about the confirm parameter mechanics.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and extremely low schema coverage, the description leaves major gaps. It does not document parameters or behavioral details needed to call it correctly.

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 11% with 9 parameters, and the description only names a few fields (title, time, location, description, matter). It does not compensate for the near-total lack of per-parameter documentation in the 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?

States a specific verb (Updates) and resource (calendar entry) and enumerates the updatable fields (title, time, location, description, matter). Distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling clio_calendar_entries_list by the write verb.

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?

Adds workflow guidance: 'preview first, then confirm with the token from the preview,' which sets the calling pattern for this mutation tool. Does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the flow is clear.

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