update-my-calendar-permission

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

The tip states that only the role property is writable, which is a key behavioral constraint beyond what the annotations say. The destructiveHint is present, and the description indirectly implies the operation is not purely additive but modifies an existing permission. However, it does not elaborate on potential side effects or irreversibility, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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: one line plus a well-structured tip. The tip is broken into clear statements about the role values, writable property, and how to obtain the permission id. It avoids redundancy and presents information efficiently without being verbose.

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 and schema together cover the operation, constraints, and confirmation parameter. A gap is that the tool does not specify which calendar it operates on (e.g., the user's primary calendar) since there is no calendarId parameter. This could lead to ambiguity, but given the tool name 'my-calendar' and the lack of alternatives, it is reasonably inferable. The absence of an output schema is acceptable, as confirmed by the instructions.

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 schema covers most parameters with descriptive text, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a crucial semantic: 'Only the role property is writable,' which directly clarifies the intended use of the body parameter and the role field. This elevates the score above the baseline, though the description does not dive into other parameter details already covered by the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Update my calendar permission.' The tip clarifies that the operation changes the role for an existing share recipient or delegate, and distinguishes it from create/delete operations. This gives a clear purpose that an agent can use to select the correct tool among similar permission tools.

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 explicitly instructs when not to use this tool: 'To change the recipient's email or other properties, delete and recreate via delete-my-calendar-permission + create-my-calendar-permission.' It also tells the agent to get the permission id via list-my-calendar-permissions. This provides clear usage boundaries and directs the agent to alternative actions.

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