set_availability_rules

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'Upsert: overwrites any existing rules' and the effect on availability queries adds some context but does not significantly extend beyond the annotations. No side effects beyond overwriting are disclosed, and the impact on existing events is not clarified.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the effect on queries and the overwrite behavior. No extraneous information; every sentence earns its place.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior: setting buffers and working hours, their automatic application, and the upsert nature. It could mention that working hours are optional or that timezone defaults to UTC, but the schema handles that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a setter tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'buffer times before/after events and optional per-day working hours', which aligns with parameters but does not add detailed semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The parameter descriptions in the schema are already comprehensive.

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's verb ('Set or replace'), the resource ('availability rules on a calendar'), and the specific behaviors ('buffer times before/after events and optional per-day working hours'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'clear_availability_rules' and 'get_availability_rules' by focusing on setting/replacing rules.

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 context on when the rules take effect ('every availability query on this calendar automatically applies them') and notes the upsert behavior ('overwrites any existing rules'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use 'clear_availability_rules' for removal.

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