updateEvent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states partial-update semantics ('Omitted fields keep their current values'), but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or the irreversibility of the update. A 3 reflects that it adds some valuable behavior context while leaving significant gaps.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff; the purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence adds essential behavioral nuance about field omission. 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 nested event object with complex date/reminder/recurrence schemas and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits how the update interacts with required fields, what happens to attendees on date changes, and any authentication or error behavior. An agent needs more context to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining eventId, event, and calendarId. It only generically refers to 'fields' and the partial-update behavior, giving no specific meaning for the parameters. It fails to clarify what eventId identifies or how calendarId scopes the operation.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing Google Calendar event'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like createEvent and deleteEvent. The phrase 'existing' signals that it modifies rather than creates.

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 use for updating existing events by contrasting with creating, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor any exclusions. An agent can infer the use case from 'existing,' but no direct guidance is provided.

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