calendar_update_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'update an existing calendar event' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid eventId), or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('update an existing calendar event') and specifies key modifiable attributes. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), response format, error conditions, and usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective tool invocation is insufficient.

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?

The description lists modifiable fields (title, dates, location, notes), which aligns with the input schema parameters. However, schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage without providing additional semantic context (e.g., format details or constraints).

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 verb 'update' and resource 'calendar event', specifying what can be modified (title, dates, location, notes). It distinguishes from siblings like calendar_create_event and calendar_delete_event by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from calendar_list_events or other calendar tools beyond the basic action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing event ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new events), or direct comparisons to siblings like calendar_create_event or calendar_delete_event. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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