publish_to_calendar

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the user-confirmation gate and the preview-prerequisite, but says nothing about what the destructive side effect actually touches (existing calendar events, duplicates, rollback) or how the fingerprint guard behaves.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and its target before the preconditions. Every clause (exact, previously previewed, approved, confirmation) adds a distinct constraint.

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 presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, and the three required preconditions are named. For a destructive external write with a 0%-covered schema, though, the description should say more about the fingerprint's role and what publishing irreversibly changes in Apple Calendar.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it does loosely map to all four parameters (draft, exact version, previously previewed fingerprint, explicit confirmation). However it gives no formats, provenance, or how to obtain the previewFingerprint hash, leaving the required-field mechanics to the bare schema.

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 (publish) and resource (an approved draft version) with the external target named explicitly as Apple Calendar, which implicitly separates it from publish_to_notion. It does not explicitly name sibling steps like preview_calendar_publication, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"Previously previewed approved draft" and "after explicit user confirmation" give clear preconditions for when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or of routing to failing-case alternatives such as re-running the preview or approve_daily_draft.

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