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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does: it explains the symmetric link created in both directions and that detach reverses it, which is genuine behavioral detail an agent needs to reason about side effects. It stops short of describing permissions or workspace scoping.

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?

One tight paragraph: the action and its bidirectional effect come first, then the user-intent mapping, then the action values with the default. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical and the prose 'es lo que hace' phrasing add slight redundancy.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what the link does in both directions, the prerequisite event creation, and the action default and alternatives. Workspace requirement and error behavior are left to the schema, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents task_id, event_id and workspace_id. The description adds real value by disclosing that action defaults to 'attach', which the bare enum does not convey. That default is the only extra semantic supplied; the rest of the parameter meaning lives in 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+resource (linking a task to a calendar event, or unlinking it) and immediately clarifies the bidirectional effect: the task shows up in the event and vice versa. It also ties the tool to the sibling create_event, so an agent can distinguish it from the many other link/document tools without opening a schema.

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?

It gives a clear selection context — this is the mechanism behind «agendar esta tarea» and it is used after the event exists (created via create_event). It also surfaces the detach alternative. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. what to do if the link already exists), which keeps it short of a 5.

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