outlook_update_event

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive hint (destructiveHint=false) and description adds key behavioral detail: 'partial patch — only provided fields change'. This goes beyond annotations, though it does not disclose potential side effects like calendar notification triggers.

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 sentence that is extremely concise and front-loaded with the action. Every word serves a purpose.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits critical context such as permissions, validation behavior, or required resource existence. It only states the patch behavior, leaving significant gaps 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not provide any parameter-specific meanings beyond what the parameter names imply. It only reiterates the general patch behavior, failing to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 uses specific verb 'update' and resource 'event', and clarifies it's a partial patch. It distinguishes from create or get events, though does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools. The name itself provides clear context.

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 implies usage for updating existing events but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like create, delete, or other update tools. No when-not or prerequisite information is provided.

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