calendar_quick_add

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. It doesn't mention that events go to the 'primary' calendar by default, how parsing errors are handled, whether authentication is needed, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic creation. The example is helpful but insufficient.

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 with a concrete example. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action and parameter behavior.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and an output schema that covers return values. However, the natural language parsing behavior is underspecified, and the lack of annotation/behavioral detail leaves gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It partially does for 'text' via the example, but the optional 'calendar_id' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving its semantics unclear.

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 creates a calendar event, and the 'natural language' phrase plus example distinguishes it from the structured calendar_create_event sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative or contrast with it.

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 natural language aspect implies when to use this tool (quick, friendly input) but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer calendar_create_event or any exclusions. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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