ghl_calendar_event_schedule_update

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with an update operation. The description adds 'Only provided fields will be updated' (partial update behavior) and includes OAuth scopes ('calendars.write'), which are critical behavioral constraints not in annotations. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but the added context is valuable.

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 concise, consisting of two short paragraphs. It front-loads the purpose and then provides essential details (partial update, endpoint, scopes). Every sentence adds value, though the endpoint info could be considered supplementary. Overall, it is efficiently structured.

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?

The description lacks an explanation of the return value (no output schema), and the partial update behavior is stated but not fully clarified (e.g., whether rules are merged or replaced). Given the complexity of nested objects and the absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete by clarifying merge semantics or success/error responses.

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 does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates 'calendar ID is provided in the path' and 'Only provided fields will be updated,' which is a general behavioral note rather than parameter-specific semantics.

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 clearly states 'Update event calendar availability schedule' and elaborates 'Update the availability schedule for a specific event calendar.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghl_calendar_event_schedule_create and ghl_calendar_event_schedule_get.

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 mentions 'Only provided fields will be updated,' which implies a partial update pattern. However, it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or get), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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