Update Calendar Event

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't explain whether updates are partial/full, how omitted fields are handled, or any side effects. The description carries minimal extra value over the annotations.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It states the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and the description is only 'Update an existing appointment/event.', it is severely incomplete. It provides no information about update semantics, return values, error handling, or which fields are changeable. This is far from adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage at only 11% (only eventId has a description), the description does nothing to compensate for the other 8 parameters. It mentions no parameter names, no enum meanings (like status values), and no field semantics, leaving the schema's self-explanatory property names as the only guidance. This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('existing appointment/event'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create or delete. The verb and resource are specific and 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?

The usage is implied by the word 'existing' (you update something that already exists) and the verb 'update', but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create/delete, nor any prerequisites like the required eventId. This is implied rather than stated.

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