Update a Feishu calendar's name, description, or color using its calendar ID. Use it to change existing calendar details when settings or labels need revision.
更新飞书日历信息
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | No | 日历颜色 (Calendar color, hex format) | |
| summary | No | 日历名称 (Calendar name/title) | |
| calendar_id | Yes | 日历 ID (Calendar ID) | |
| description | No | 日历描述 (Calendar description) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions '更新' (update), which implies a mutation, but it doesn't describe what happens to existing fields, whether the operation is reversible, permission requirements, or the expected response. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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 complexity of a mutation tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention required permissions, the scope of updates, or any behavioral aspects, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters (color, summary, calendar_id, description) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('更新' / update) and resource ('飞书日历' / Feishu calendar), making the purpose immediately clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like feishu_create_calendar or feishu_get_calendar by the update action, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as feishu_create_calendar or feishu_delete_calendar. It lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing calendar) or scenarios where it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.