update_calendar_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the operation updates and returns the updated metadata including provider information, which is useful. But it does not mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether calendar_name must already exist.

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 brief and front-loaded with the action, then uses Args/Returns sections for structure. No filler sentences; every part adds information.

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 simple two-parameter update tool, the description covers the operation, parameter formats, and return value, and an output schema exists. It is still missing usage guidance, side-effect disclosure, and error semantics, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 must compensate. It does: calendar_name is explained with the provider-prefix format and an example, and description is marked optional. This adds real meaning beyond the bare type declarations in the input schema.

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 one-line 'Update metadata for a calendar' names a specific verb and resource, making the tool's core action clear. It is distinguishable from the event-focused siblings like update_event and list_events, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself beyond the resource being a calendar.

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 this tool is for changing calendar-level metadata such as the description, and the sibling list shows event tools are separate. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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