calendar_add_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds the non-obvious rule that confirm: true will not enable writes without independent human approval — a critical behavioral fact an agent could otherwise get wrong. It does not describe what the preview returns or any limits, so it falls short of fully rich disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the preview scope and the write-blocking caveat both front-loaded. The only mild redundancy is repeating the confirm: true behavior that the schema also states.

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 read-only preview tool with no output schema and full parameter coverage, the description conveys nearly everything needed to call it safely. The one gap is what the returned preview contains, which the agent must discover empirically.

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 every parameter including confirm is already documented; the description's mention of confirm largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Previsualiza un recordatorio personal'), and the second sentence clarifies that no creation occurs, correcting the misleading 'add_event' name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_calendar_events, though 'personal reminder' vs. Campus calendar implies the split.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for producing a preview, and creation is blocked pending human approval. It never names an alternative (e.g. what to do when the agent actually needs a Campus event), so the agent must infer the fallback path.

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