outlook_update_event

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds far more, disclosing that `attendees` replaces the entire guest list and triggers invitations plus cancellations, that a time patch preserves the event's anchor zone unless `timezone` is passed, and that start/end/recurrence patches to a series with edited or deleted occurrences are refused. It also clarifies the dangerous ambiguity that False and [] are instructions rather than absences. This is exactly the side-effect disclosure a destructive mutation needs.

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 text is long but dense and front-loaded, with the core partial-patch rule first and backticked parameter names aiding scanning. The closing note that omitted arguments stay unchanged overlaps slightly with the opening 'only provided fields change' line, though it earns its place by clarifying that False and [] are explicit instructions.

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 12-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the risky semantics thoroughly. The main residual gap is that it never says where an event_id comes from (outlook_list_events / outlook_get_event) or what the call returns, which matters slightly given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 0% across 12 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely discharges it: it explains `recurrence` shapes and its relationship to outlook_create_event, `remove_recurrence` semantics, `attendees` replace-not-append behavior, `is_all_day`/`start`/`end` coupling, `timezone` re-anchoring, and `show_as` values. The remaining undocumented parameters (event_id, subject, body, location) are self-evident by name.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (update), resource (existing event) and scope (partial patch — only provided fields change), which is exactly the semantic an agent needs to separate it from outlook_create_event and outlook_delete_event. The sibling tools list contains all three, and the description makes the boundary 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 gives explicit conditional routing: omit `recurrence` to leave it alone, pass `remove_recurrence=True` to revert to a single event, and notes the two are mutually exclusive. It also states that `is_all_day` requires start+end together while `show_as` patches alone. It stops short of naming sibling tools to call for adjacent tasks (e.g. rsvp, delete_event), so no explicit when-not guidance.

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