Edit Calendar Event

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

With annotations already declaring non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, the description still adds real value: that no invitations or reminders are emitted, the required permission scope, the If-Match precondition, and conflict-recovery behavior. It does not cover partial-versus-full replacement semantics for the four optional fields, which is the main behavioral gap.

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, each carrying distinct information: the mutation, the permission/etag precondition, and the conflict-recovery rule. The precondition is front-loaded 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?

An output schema exists and every parameter is documented, so the description needn't cover returns. It covers permissions, notification suppression, and conflict handling, but leaves ambiguous whether omitted optional fields are preserved or cleared on an edit — a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters including If-Match and time_zone. The description only adds the qualifier that If-Match must be the 'reviewed' value; it says nothing about how title, start, duration, description or mailbox_id interact. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Edit an event') and immediately adds a distinguishing behavior ('without sending invitations or email reminders'), which separates it from create/send paths. It does not name a sibling tool explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions ('Requires calendar.write and the reviewed If-Match value') and a recovery rule ('Reload after a conflict before making another change'), which implies when it can be called. It never contrasts itself with create_calendar_event, get_calendar_event, or delete_calendar_event, so alternative-selection guidance 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.