ghl_calendar_schedule_update

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable context: it is a PUT endpoint, requires OAuth scopes 'calendars.write', and clarifies that only provided fields are updated (partial update). No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences: purpose, what fields can be updated and that fields are optional, and endpoint details. It is front-loaded with the core action. Could be slightly tighter by merging the first two sentences, but overall efficient.

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 and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage (partial update), and endpoint. It does not explain what the response looks like or error handling, but for an update tool this is acceptable. Sibling tools provide context.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with full descriptions, but the tool description adds the key insight that 'All fields are optional - only provided fields will be updated,' indicating a partial update behavior. This goes beyond the schema which just lists fields.

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 user availability schedule' and specifies that it modifies rules, timezone, and name. The name and description clearly indicate an update operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create or delete, though the context implies it.

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 says 'Modify an existing schedule' and 'All fields are optional - only provided fields will be updated,' which gives usage context. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create), nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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