create-my-calendar-permission

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'create' aligns with them. Beyond annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: it shares the primary calendar, specifies the body structure, and notes the return value (id for subsequent operations). It doesn't disclose potential side effects like overriding existing permissions, but the given context is sufficient given the annotation coverage.

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 well-structured: a concise purpose sentence followed by a tip that includes an example and related guidance. The tip is informative but could be slightly trimmed (e.g., the example contains placeholder names and addresses that could be abbreviated). Still, every sentence carries useful information, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects for an agent: what it does, the exact body structure, the role values, and the return value. It also provides a practical hint to resolve recipient SMTP via list-users. Minor gaps include no mention of side effects on existing permissions or the confirm parameter, but these are covered by schema and annotations. Overall, it's adequate for correct invocation.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value with a concrete example body including emailAddress, role enum values, and other fields. It also clarifies the role options ('read' | 'write' | 'delegateWithoutPrivateEventAccess' | 'delegateWithPrivateEventAccess'). This goes beyond the schema's generic enum by showing a realistic payload.

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 action ('create a calendarPermission resource'), the resource type, and the purpose (specify identity and role for sharing/delegating a calendar). The tip further clarifies it's the user's primary calendar, which distinguishes it from other calendar-related creation tools like 'create-calendar'. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 use case: 'Shares the user's primary calendar with another user (or sets up a delegate)'. It also gives a prerequisite ('Use list-users to resolve the recipient SMTP') and ties the returned id to update/delete operations, implying when to use this vs alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like creating permissions for other calendars, which would make it fully explicit.

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