Replace a leaked calendar subscribe link to disable the old link at once and require subscribers to add the new link.
Replace this inbox's calendar subscribe link; the old link stops working at once.
Use only when the link leaked. Everyone subscribed has to add the new link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive consequence ('the old link stops working at once') and the downstream impact on subscribers. It stops short of covering permissions required or reversibility/idempotency.
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?
Two short sentences, with the operational consequence front-loaded before the usage restriction. No filler.
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?
For a one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, destructive effect, and the trigger condition. The main gap is the meaning/format of the required 'address' argument.
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% for the single 'address' parameter, so the description must compensate. 'This inbox's' hints that address identifies the target inbox, but no format or expected value is given, leaving real ambiguity.
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 ('Replace') and resource ('this inbox's calendar subscribe link') plus the resulting state change, which clearly separates it from the read-only sibling get_calendar_feed. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
Gives an explicit gating condition: 'Use only when the link leaked,' which functions as a when-to-use/when-not rule. It does not, however, name the alternative (get_calendar_feed) for agents that merely want to inspect the current link.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.