Edit Calendar Event

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds genuine value on top: no invitations or reminders are dispatched, a write scope is required, and the If-Match concurrency contract with reload-on-conflict behavior is stated. It stops short of saying whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared.

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 compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the required permission and concurrency token, and the conflict recovery step. Nothing is wasted and the key constraint is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers permissions and concurrency well. The remaining gap is update semantics: whether this is a full replace or a partial patch, and whether an omitted field such as duration is preserved or cleared.

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 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description correctly adds no redundant re-listing. The only parameter-level context it contributes is that If-Match must be the 'reviewed' value, a modest addition over the schema's own wording. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 and resource ('Edit an event') and adds a distinguishing behavioral detail: no invitations or email reminders are sent. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (mailbox_create_calendar_event), so differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

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 real preconditions ('Requires calendar.write and the reviewed If-Match value') and a procedural rule for the conflict case ('Reload after a conflict before making another change'). What's missing is explicit routing: when to use this versus create_calendar_event or the qubrics_ prefixed variant is left to inference.

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