add_to_calendar

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

The description goes beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by explaining automatic extraction, saving attachments, showing a confirmation dialog on macOS, and returning status codes. However, it does not mention that the confirmation dialog can be bypassed when confirm=false, nor does it explain the meaning of 'no_display' or behavior on Linux without a display.

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 at four sentences, with each sentence adding value: purpose, extraction behavior, attachment handling, confirmation, and return values. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers a lot: platform specifics, automatic extraction, attachment saving, confirmation, and return statuses. However, it omits details about the effect of confirm=false, platform differences (e.g., no confirmation on Linux), and what exactly triggers 'no_display'. These gaps prevent a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds context about the email data extraction (ICS, meeting URLs, attendees) but does not provide additional meaning for individual parameters beyond what is already in the schema. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add an email event to the local calendar' with specific verb and resource. It also mentions platform support (macOS/Linux) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like extract_calendar and list_events by focusing on adding events from email.

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 provides a clear context for when to use the tool (adding email events to calendar) and includes details about automatic extraction. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as preferring extract_calendar for just retrieving event details, or checking calendar permissions first.

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