calendars_create_calendar_resource

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the creation behavior is implied. However, the description adds no additional context about what happens during creation—no mention of required permissions, side effects, or relationships to other resources. It merely states the action without enriching the behavioral model provided by the annotations.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that essentially restates the tool name. While it is short, it is not effectively structured: it does not front-load important differentiators or provide any substantive content. The sentence does not earn its place because it adds no value beyond the tool title.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, enum for resourceType, constraints on calendarIds), the description is grossly inadequate. It provides no context about the creation process, required fields, or expected outcomes. With no output schema to fall back on, the description should outline what the creation entails, but it offers only the bare action name. An agent using this tool would lack essential information to invoke it correctly.

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% (6 of 8 parameters have descriptions), which is moderate but not high enough to warrant a baseline of 3. The tool description adds nothing about parameter semantics—it does not explain how resourceType selects equipment vs. rooms, the relationship between quantity and outOfService, or the mapping constraints for calendarIds. The schema carries the burden, but the description fails to provide additional interpretive guidance.

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 clear verb and object ('Create Calendar Resource'), which identifies the action and resource type. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like calendars_create_calendar or calendars_create_calendar_group, which are also create operations in the same domain. The purpose is clear but lacks distinguishing context that would help an agent select this tool among its siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone, and no information is given about how this differs from creating a calendar or a calendar group.

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