update_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed') but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens to omitted fields. For a mutation tool, more context would be helpful, but the description still adds meaningful behavioral information beyond the schema.

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-loads the action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose and key behavioral note.

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 14 parameters and no annotations, the description is sparse. The schema covers per-field meaning, but the description does not address interactions like all-day vs timed fields, timezone dependencies, or default notification behavior. It is adequate for basic usage but not fully comprehensive for a complex update tool.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Only provided fields are changed' clarifies that parameters are optional partial updates, which is useful but does not provide per-parameter details beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'existing calendar event,' clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_event and delete_event. It unambiguously states the action and target.

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 'existing calendar event' clearly implies use for modifying an existing event rather than creating or deleting. Sibling tool names make alternatives obvious, and 'Only provided fields are changed' adds context for updating only select fields.

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