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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds behavior beyond that: a card is *linked* to the event, a default title is generated, and the default due date depends on whether the event is a Klassenarbeit (one week before) or not (two days before). Return value of the created card is the only unreported trait.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and destination, then the timeline rules. Every clause carries information, though the nesting makes it heavier to parse than a two-sentence split would be.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers origin, destination, defaults and fallback. What is missing is what happens on failure (event not owned / not found) and whether the card is returned so its id can be used by update_task.

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 75% and the one undocumented parameter, event_id, is exactly the one the description explains (origin tool and required source value). The description also supplies defaulting behavior for title and due_date that the schema does not express, though it does not clarify precedence when due_date is supplied alongside the Klassenarbeit rule.

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 and resource (creates a linked preparation card on the class task board) and scopes it to the agent's own events where the source is "own". It is clearly distinguishable from add_tasks and add_calendar_events because it derives the card from an existing calendar event.

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?

Gives the key precondition — event_id must come from list_calendar and be of source "own" — plus the fallback destination when no class exists ("Meine Aufgaben"). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g. add_tasks for a standalone card), so a 4 rather than a 5.

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