rename_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add two useful facts: names must be unique and the change is reversible ('Can be undone'). However, it omits what happens on a uniqueness collision, whether the calendar is addressed by name or ID, and any permission requirements for a mutation.

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, zero padding, with the action statement front-loaded and constraints following. Every sentence adds information.

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 fully undocumented parameters, the description is only partially sufficient. It covers the uniqueness constraint and reversibility but leaves error behavior, target identification, and response expectations unstated.

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 0%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description implies new_name must be unique but never specifies the identifier format for 'calendar' (name vs. ID), so the agent is left to guess how to address the target.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rename an event calendar'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_calendar, delete_calendar, set_calendar_color, and rename_list. It does not explicitly name or contrast with an alternative, but the resource specificity makes selection 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?

No guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. The natural sibling rename_list exists, and set_calendar_color is a different calendar mutation, yet the description says nothing about which to use or when this is appropriate. Only implicit context is provided.

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