calendar_acl_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates an ACL rule but does not mention side effects (e.g., immediate effect, potential conflicts), required permissions, error states (e.g., rule not found), or idempotency. The description is too succinct 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 sentence, perfectly concise with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success (e.g., returns the updated rule), error conditions (e.g., invalid role), or dependencies (e.g., calendar must exist). More context is needed for safe and effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, meaning all parameters have descriptions (role, ruleId, calendarId). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline. No param details are missing, but the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing access control rule' for a Google Calendar, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like insert (create) and delete. However, it does not specify that only the role field can be updated, which is implied by the schema but not explicit in the description.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calendar_acl_insert or calendar_acl_delete. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., rule ID must exist) or when not to use it. The description lacks any usage context.

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