gws.cal.update_event

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: patch semantics (only provided fields change), default calendar unless calendarId given, and the return of updated event details. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's effect.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: patch semantics, time format, calendar default, return info, and a user-preview reminder. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by mentioning return values (title, times, ID, link) and default behavior. It also clarifies patch semantics and timezone requirements. It lacks explicit error handling or permission notes, but given the richness of schema and annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying patch semantics (only provided fields change) and specifying that start/end must include the timezone offset in RFC3339 format, which is not fully stated in the schema descriptions.

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 "Update (reschedule/edit) an existing calendar event" with specific verb and resource. It explains patch semantics, which distinguishes it from create_event and delete_event siblings, making its purpose 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 description implies usage for modifying existing events and gives context like default calendar behavior and the instruction to "Preview the changes with the user before calling." It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for creation), but the purpose is clear enough to differentiate from siblings.

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