sync_route_calendarSynchronize one complete Pool Founder route-date window into the private Pool Pro Florida CalDAV calendar. Each stop is one stable VEVENT. Completed events are historical records and are never removed. Missing non-completed events inside a validated complete window are retained and marked cancelled instead of deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| events | Yes | ||
| snapshot | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / events / items / properties / address / descriptionAdded value: +"Service address. Written to LOCATION so mobile calendars can open Maps."Input schema / properties / events / items / properties / emailAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional structured customer email from Pool Founder. Included in event notes for tap-to-email on mobile calendars.",
+ "format": "email",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / events / items / properties / phoneAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional structured customer phone number from Pool Founder. Included in event notes for tap-to-call on mobile calendars.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: each stop maps to one stable VEVENT, completed events are never removed, and missing non-completed events are retained and marked cancelled rather than deleted. This precisely explains the non-destructive guarantee consistent with destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, far exceeding what the annotations alone convey.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the synchronization target and followed immediately by the retention/cancellation rules. No filler or repetition.
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 mutating tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the critical semantics (stable identity, non-destructive handling of missing/completed events). It omits auth/permission requirements and any indication of the returned result counts, which would round it out.
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?
Top-level parameters (events, snapshot) carry no schema descriptions, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the window/stop semantics conceptually. However it never documents the required snapshot fields or the per-event fields, leaving the meaning of 'complete'/'validated' to be inferred from the nested 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?
States a specific verb (Synchronize) and precise resource/scope (one complete Pool Founder route-date window into the Pool Pro Florida CalDAV calendar). This clearly distinguishes it from the single-stop sibling upsert_route_stop_event, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for a full validated window, and the 'validated complete window' phrasing hints the caller must not use it for partial data. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. upsert_route_stop_event guidance or stated preconditions for authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.