update_calendar_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that times are UTC+8, that start/end must be local time, and that unspecified fields are left untouched — real behavioral context. It omits permissions, side effects on existing reminders/attendees, and error behavior 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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a scannable parameter list; every line carries information. Slightly list-heavy but no filler or redundancy.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing parameter documentation and the partial-update/timezone semantics an agent needs to call it correctly. It stops short of covering failure modes or auth requirements.

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 description must compensate, and it largely does: all 12 parameters are enumerated with types, optional/required status, and value hints ('Text'/'HTML', 'low'/'normal'/'high'). Remaining gaps are ranges (reminder_minutes) and interactions (is_reminder_on vs reminder_minutes).

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 (日历事件/calendar event) plus a scoping constraint (UTC+8), which cleanly separates it from create_/delete_/list_calendar_event. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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 context is implied: it updates an *existing* event and only touches provided fields, which tells the agent partial-update semantics. However it never says when to prefer this over create_calendar_event, nor any prerequisites beyond requiring event_id.

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