calendars_add_calendar_to_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds no additional behavioral context—it merely restates the action without discussing effects such as what happens if the calendar is already linked or whether schedule changes propagate. It does not contradict annotations but adds no value beyond them.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is so terse that it misses the opportunity to clarify the exact semantic relationship, though for a simple tool this brevity is acceptable.

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 two-parameter tool with a complete schema and relevant annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'apply' in terms of how the schedule affects the calendar, nor any caveats about existing associations. The agent must infer the operation's semantics from the name and parameters, which is workable but not fully complete.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented clearly ('id' as schedule identifier, 'calendarId' as team calendar identifier). The description does not add any further meaning about parameter relationships or constraints, so it stays at the baseline for high coverage without extra detail.

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 action ('apply') and the resources involved ('user availability schedule' and 'calendar'), which matches the tool name and distinguishes it from the sibling 'calendars_remove_calendar_from_schedule'. However, the direction of the relationship could be clearer: it says 'apply schedule to calendar' rather than explicitly 'add calendar to schedule', which might cause slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like calendars_remove_calendar_from_schedule or calendars_update_schedule. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and parameters.

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