calendar_update_event

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false; the description adds meaningful context beyond that by disclosing the approval gate and the series-splitting consequence of 'following' (earlier occurrences untouched). It still omits partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved), which matters for a 13-param 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the scope semantics and the approval requirement. Every sentence carries information the agent needs and there is 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 13-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope and approval but omits several decision-relevant behaviors: whether this is a partial or full replace of event fields, what send_updates defaults to, and what the result of a series split looks like. Adequate but with real gaps.

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 46%, below the threshold where the schema can carry the load. The description compensates well for the riskiest parameter by explaining the real consequence of 'following' (series split) that the schema entry does not, and clarifies the 'this' default; remaining undocumented params (start_time, title, event_id) are largely self-explanatory.

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 ('Update an existing calendar event'), which separates it from calendar_create_event and calendar_delete_event by implication. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent mutators like calendar_set_event_color or calendar_set_event_visibility, so the boundary for those overlapping edits is left to inference.

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 scope enumeration effectively documents when each occurrence-mode applies, and 'Requires user approval' flags a prerequisite. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this general update over a narrower sibling such as calendar_set_event_color, nor any exclusion criteria.

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