calendar_event_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions partial update behavior, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., notification to attendees via send_updates parameter), required permissions, error handling, or confirmation of changes. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 short sentence that is immediately understandable. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly expanded with a note about required parameters or common usage without losing conciseness.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention required parameters (account, event_id), the default for calendar_id ('primary'), or how to format date strings. The send_updates parameter with three options is not addressed. The description lacks sufficient detail for an agent to confidently invoke the 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 0%, so the description is expected to add meaning. It only says 'only the fields you pass are changed' which is a general behavior, but does not explain any of the 11 parameters (e.g., date format for start/end, the meaning of attendees, or the send_updates enum). The description adds very little value beyond what the parameter names and types suggest.

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?

Description clearly states 'Patch an existing event' which is a specific verb+resource, and 'only the fields you pass are changed' explains the scope of the update. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_event_create (create) and calendar_event_delete (delete).

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 use for updating an existing event, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. It provides no exclusions or comparisons with other tools, relying on the tool name and context from siblings.

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