ghl_calendar_block_slot_update

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, it adds OAuth scopes and endpoint info but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like potential side effects, return value, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with annotations, this is adequate but not enriching.

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?

Description is very concise, consisting of a title, a single-sentence description, endpoint, and scopes. It avoids unnecessary detail and is easy to parse. However, the title is repeated verbatim, and the structure could be more front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 has 2 parameters (one nested), full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It does not explain the effect of updating a block slot, the significance of the eventId parameter (e.g., masterEventId for recurring), or any response details. Adequate for a straightforward update but not comprehensive.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not explain the structure or constraints of the 'body' parameter. No enhancement over 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Update' and resource 'block slot', and specifies it updates by ID. However, it does not clarify what a block slot is or distinguish it from other block slot operations (e.g., create, delete), though the verb inherently differentiates. Sibling tools with similar names like ghl_calendar_block_slot_create exist, but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, delete, list). Does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or contexts where this tool is appropriate. The description lacks any usage direction beyond the basic update action.

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