calendar_update_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'requires approval', which adds some context about permissions or workflow, but fails to disclose other critical traits such as whether the update is destructive, what happens on failure, rate limits, or response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with just two words and a parenthetical note, making it front-loaded and efficient. Every part ('Update event details' and 'requires approval') earns its place by conveying core purpose and a key constraint without waste.

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 (mutation with 3 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and usage context, despite the presence of an output schema. For a tool that modifies events and involves approval, more information is needed to guide effective use.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description does not add any meaning beyond the tool name; it doesn't explain what 'event_id', 'changes', or 'approval_id' represent, their formats, or how they interact. With 3 parameters and low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 'Update event details' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (event details), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'calendar_cancel_event' or 'calendar_create_event' beyond the basic action, missing specific differentiation like scope or constraints unique to this update operation.

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 includes '(requires approval)', which implies a prerequisite context for usage, suggesting this tool should be used when approval is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'calendar_create_event' or 'calendar_cancel_event', nor does it provide exclusions or detailed guidance on the approval process beyond the hint.

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