_mcp_schedule_meeting

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: uses Calendly API and performs a dry-run if the token is missing. This is sufficient for basic behavior, though additional details like rate limits or side effects are absent.

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 sentence that is well front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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 has an output schema and only two parameters, the description should at least outline the expected inputs and output. It lacks parameter explanations and what the tool returns, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the 'window' or 'duration' parameters. It adds zero semantic value beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and format.

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 tool proposes meeting slots via the Calendly API. It is specific about the action and resource, and the tool name aligns with this purpose. However, 'propose' could be interpreted as suggesting available times versus creating meetings, which introduces 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?

The description implies usage by mentioning 'dry-run if FTOS_CALENDLY_TOKEN not configured', which hints at when the tool actually schedules versus tests. No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives is given, but the tool appears unique among siblings.

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