Update calendar

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable scope detail: exception days are replaced only inside the named range while days outside stay as they are. This precisely bounds the destructive behavior in a way annotations cannot.

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, front-loaded sentences with the partial-update contract stated first and the precondition last. No wasted text, though the final fragmentary 'Inside an open unit of work only' is slightly clipped.

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, full schema coverage, and safety annotations present, the description only needs to add behavioral nuance, which it does via the range-replacement rule. It is essentially complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the range-scoped behavior of exceptionDays and the partial-update contract, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb ('changes a calendar as a partial update') and resource, and clarifies the mutation is partial rather than full. It reads clearly against siblings like rillsoft_calendar_create and rillsoft_calendar_delete, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Provides a real precondition ('inside an open unit of work only') and clarifies partial-update semantics so the agent knows omitted fields are untouched. It does not explicitly route between update/create/delete alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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