calendar_update_event

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses ETag usage, human approval requirements (except for continuous connector-private edits), and specific attendee handling that preserves responses. It also reveals failure behavior for series with persisted exceptions, providing substantial insight into side effects and concurrency control.

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 reasonably concise at three sentences but packs dense jargon such as 'Uses ETags and human approval except proven continuous connector-private edits' and 'Series with persisted exceptions fail closed.' The lack of separation between functional and behavioral aspects makes it harder to parse quickly.

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 (nested changes object, 7 required parameters, no output schema), the description fails to explain expected outputs, error conditions, or notification behavior (e.g., sendUpdates effect). It only hints at failure modes for series with exceptions, leaving an agent to infer too much about the tool's full behavior.

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 description provides almost no direct explanation of any input parameters. It indirectly references event scope (default, series, occurrence) and attendee modes, but does not clarify accountId, calendarId, requestId, sendUpdates, or the many fields inside the changes object. With 0% schema coverage, this is a critical gap.

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 that the tool patches a single calendar event, explicitly distinguishing between default events, series, and recurring occurrences. It also specifies limitations (no arbitrary responseStatus/status) and the behavior for series with exceptions, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 an existing event (as opposed to create/delete) and highlights attendee add/remove/replace modes, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like calendar_create_event or calendar_rsvp. The 'fail closed' clause for series with exceptions gives a conditional hint but lacks guidance on alternatives.

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