calendar_task_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the return payload and the non-obvious identity semantics (renaming changes the task's identity, so new_title + occurrence must be reused). It says nothing about permissions, failure behavior when the title isn't found, or whether clear_date/notes clearing is reversible.

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 tight paragraphs: the operation and its editable surface first, then the return/identity contract. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to sequence follow-up calls.

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?

For a 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the operation list, the return shape, and task-identity reuse — enough to invoke correctly. The remaining gap is error/ambiguity handling when the title matches no task or multiple, which the `occurrence` hint only partly addresses.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining why `occurrence` matters in follow-up calls and pairing it with `new_title` as the new identity — semantics the per-parameter text alone doesn't connect.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit a Google Task') and enumerates exactly which fields are editable (title, date/time, notes, subtasks, star, list). The scope is unambiguous, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling calendar_task_complete, which also mutates a task.

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?

Usage is only implied by the field list — an agent infers it should edit an existing task rather than create one. There is no explicit when-not guidance, and notably no routing to calendar_task_complete for marking a task done, despite the overlapping `completed` parameter that only acts as a lookup filter here.

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