Update Calendar Event

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: omitted fields remain unchanged, and sending null clears specific fields. This adds value over the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) by explaining partial update semantics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence carries essential information without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the update behavior and null semantics. It explains the most important nuance for a mutation tool. Missing details about all parameters are partially mitigated by the comprehensive input schema.

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 low (17%), but the description adds generic semantics about null clearing for certain fields. However, it does not detail individual parameter meanings beyond that. The null behavior information helps but is not comprehensive for all 18 parameters.

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 ('a calendar event'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create/delete by specifying update semantics. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage by stating 'Omitted fields are unchanged; send null to clear...', which provides context for updating vs. creating. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of prerequisites (e.g., event must exist).

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