Relocate a calendar event, including its whole repeating series, to a different calendar. Use it to reorganize schedules while keeping the same uid and details.
Move an event to another calendar (same uid, same details). calendar is optional: leave it out to find the event in any calendar. A repeating event moves with its whole series. Can be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| calendar | No | ||
| to_calendar | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a reasonable job: it discloses that identity/details are preserved, that repeating events move as an entire series, and that the action is reversible ('Can be undone'). It omits permission requirements and failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the target calendar does not exist), which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the optional-parameter rule, then the series and undo behaviors. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage across 3 parameters, the description covers the key semantics (series behavior, reversibility, optional locating calendar) but leaves gaps on permissions, error cases, and what is returned. Adequate but noticeably incomplete.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the most confusing parameter: it explains that 'calendar' is an optional locating scope used to find the event in any calendar, distinguishing it from 'to_calendar' (the destination) and implying 'uid' identifies the event. The remaining two parameters are only inferable rather than explicitly defined, so it is not a full 5.
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 states a specific verb+resource ('Move an event to another calendar') and clarifies scope with '(same uid, same details)', which implicitly separates it from update_event (which changes details) and duplicate_event. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5, but the operation is 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 clear guidance for one parameter's usage ('calendar is optional: leave it out to find the event in any calendar'), which is genuinely useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance for the sibling tools update_event, duplicate_event, or delete_event, so the routing burden is only partly addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.