m365_calendar_update

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

Annotations already establish this as a destructive, non-read-only operation. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether updates are partial or full replacements, or whether special permissions are needed. It simply repeats the act of updating without disclosing anything beyond what annotations convey.

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, making it concise. However, it essentially restates the tool name and lacks substantive detail, so it is not especially valuable. It is not verbose, but also does not fully earn 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?

For an update operation with six parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits any mention of return values, error conditions, or usage guidance. The schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, but the overall context remains incomplete.

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?

All six parameters are documented in the input schema with clear descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema carries the semantic burden. The tool description does not mention any parameters, but given full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool updates an existing calendar event, identifying the action (update) and resource (calendar event). The word 'existing' signals it is not for creation, but it does not enumerate which fields can be updated or contrast with delete/list siblings, so it remains a bit generic.

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 create or delete. There are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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