calendar.update_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency, but it only says 'update'. It does not disclose that partial updates are allowed, that the tool overwrites only provided fields, or that it may affect recurring events via the span parameter. The schema hints at recurrence but the description adds no behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise given the robust schema documentation.

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?

Despite 15 parameters and a complex recurrence model, the description provides no overarching context about the update workflow, required prerequisites, or return values (though output schema exists). The agent would need to rely entirely on the schema and implicit assumptions about 'update' semantics.

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 100%, so the input schema already describes all parameters in detail. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the verb. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb 'update' and the resource 'existing calendar event', making the tool's purpose obvious. It differentiates from siblings like create_event and delete_event, but does not explicitly mention that it can modify any field. The schema provides field details, so the description is sufficiently clear.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_event for new events, delete_event for removal). The description lacks any context or prerequisites for updating an event, such as requiring the event_id from a prior list operation.

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