calendars_create_schedule

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (a write operation) and openWorldHint=true, but the description does not disclose side effects, return expectations, or validation behavior. It simply states what it does without elaborating on the creation process, required inputs beyond the schema, or potential failures. This is minimal added value.

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 filler. It is front-loaded with the key action. Though short, it is efficient and appropriately sized for the content it conveys.

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 of the tool—six parameters including an arbitrary rules array, a timezone identifier, and optional calendar IDs—the description is too sparse. It does not explain what constitutes a valid schedule, how rules should be structured, or what the return value is (no output schema). An agent might guess the purpose but lacks enough context to construct correct inputs or interpret results.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific elaboration, such as the meaning of 'rules' or the relationship between timezone and locationId. It relies entirely on schema, which is acceptable but not enhanced.

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?

Verb 'create' plus resource 'user availability schedule' clearly indicates the action. It distinguishes from calendars_create_calendar (creates a calendar, not a schedule), though it is not specific about what a schedule entails. The purpose is understandable without being a tautology.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calendars_update_schedule or calendars_add_calendar_to_schedule. There is no mention of prerequisites, edge cases, or why one might choose this over a sibling. The description is purely declarative with no conditional context.

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