calendar_update_event

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

Discloses that the tool verifies changes by re-reading and highlights recurrence edits as a known flaky area, adding behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations are minimal, so description carries burden well.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Adequate for a mutation tool but lacks details on success/failure behavior, parameter interactions, and return values. No output schema provided.

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 only 30%, but description does not add meaning for the majority of parameters. Only recurrence gets extra context. Does not compensate for the low coverage.

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?

Clearly states 'Update fields on an existing event by uid', specifying the action, resource, and identifier. Distinct from sibling tools like create or delete.

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?

Mentions recurrence edits as flaky and that the tool verifies changes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete and recreate). No exclusions given.

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