schedule_todo

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior beyond safety. It does not say whether a real calendar event is created, whether repeated calls duplicate blocks, how conflicts or timezones are handled, or what the call returns. For a write operation that touches an external calendar, that is a meaningful gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and an external side effect on a calendar, the description should say more about what happens on invocation and what comes back. As written, an agent cannot tell the calendar-block semantics, idempotency, or required setup from the definition alone.

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 50%: 'start' and 'todoId' are documented in the schema, while 'workspace' and 'durationMinutes' (default 30) are undocumented anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, not even confirming that durationMinutes controls the block length, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Block time for a to-do in your calendar'), so an agent knows it creates a calendar time block from a to-do. It stops short of distinguishing this from siblings like update_todo, which could also alter scheduling fields, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of update_todo or create_todo, and no prerequisites (calendar connection, permissions, timezone assumptions) are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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