calendar_update_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosure. It does add value by clarifying that partial updates are possible (fields not provided remain unchanged), which is beyond the basic 'update' verb. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or error conditions.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a key behavioral note. No redundant or filler content.

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 8 parameters and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It omits important context such as expected date formats, how timezone is used, and what the tool returns. The presence of an output schema helps but does not entirely compensate for the lack of behavioral context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining individual parameters. While names like 'start' and 'summary' are self-explanatory, formats, defaults, or constraints (e.g., date format, timezone behavior) are not addressed.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('existing calendar event'), distinguishing it from siblings like calendar_create_event or calendar_delete_event. The word 'existing' reinforces that this tool modifies a pre-existing event.

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 phrase 'Only provided fields are changed' gives a useful behavior hint, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create for new events, delete for removal). Usage is implied rather than directly stated.

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