calendar_update_event

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

The description discloses important behavioral aspects: all updates require human WebAuthn review, online meeting body editing will be rejected, and resource re-read is not atomic concurrency control. These go beyond the annotations and give the agent a realistic picture of side effects and safeguards, though it does not describe return values or error formats.

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 succinct and well-structured, using short declarative sentences to communicate key points without redundancy. It packs essential information into four sentences, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 complex schema (nested objects, many enums), the description provides enough context about the operation's purpose, targeting rules, and concurrency caveat. It does not mention output format or error handling, but the absence of an output schema and the presence of other tool documentation partially mitigate this. It could be more complete by clarifying what 'verified exact occurrence' means or how the WebAuthn review affects execution.

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 adds almost no per-parameter detail. It mentions 'Patch ONLY supplied fields' for the patch object and 'Explicit seriesMaster or verified exact occurrence targeting' for target, but does not explain accountId, calendarId, requestId, or clarify the patch structure. The schema description coverage is only 20%, and the description does not fill that 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 the tool's purpose: 'Patch ONLY supplied fields on an organizer event.' It is unambiguous that this is a partial update operation on an event, and additional constraints (WebAuthn review, targeting rules) reinforce the scope.

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 provides explicit usage constraints: 'Explicit seriesMaster or verified exact occurrence targeting; no this-and-following' and 'Online meeting body editing is rejected.' These tell the agent when to use the tool and what limitations exist. It does not name alternative tools, but the constraints are sufficient to guide usage.

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