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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says the calendar may be 'blank or configured.' It does not say whether the call is destructive, whether it returns the new calendar's ID, what 'publisher-bound' implies about required account setup, or what happens if defaults are omitted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. Its brevity is efficient, though it is close to under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no annotations or output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent gets no picture of the resulting calendar, the required project context, or how defaults shape what gets created.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'blank or configured' loosely ties to the `source` parameter, but the description adds nothing about `default_targets`, `default_post_times` interactivity, or the `notification_message` fail-path that the schema already documents.

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?

Names a specific verb (create) and resource (content calendar) and scopes it to a publisher-bound project. It separates itself from row-level siblings (create_calendar_row) and from project creation, though it does not distinguish itself from import_content_calendar_json or nova_generate_calendar, which also produce calendars.

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 statement of when to use this versus import_content_calendar_json (bulk load from JSON) or nova_generate_calendar (AI-generated). No prerequisites are given, such as needing a bound publisher/project context, even though the description alludes to one existing.

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