calendar_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: user confirmation is required, an interrupted attempt is blocked from retrying, and event_id should be read in that case. It does not describe the successful return payload, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, then the failure-mode instruction. Every sentence carries operational value, with 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?

There is no output schema and annotations are minimal, so the description must do most of the work. It covers purpose, required parameters, confirmation gating, and retry behavior, but it does not state what a successful call returns, even though it references event_id for the interrupted case.

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?

The schema has low description coverage, so the description must carry weight. It names all required inputs (draft_id, reviewed sha256, confirmed:true) and clarifies that the sha256 must be the one reviewed by the user, which is useful semantic context. It does not explain draft_id sourcing or formatting beyond the schema pattern.

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 and resource: "Create the exact local calendar draft confirmed by the user." The phrase "exact local calendar draft confirmed by the user" distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_draft, calendar_update_draft, and calendar_discard_draft.

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?

Explicitly gives a hard precondition: "Never call before showing the proposal and receiving confirmation." It also covers the interrupted-attempt case and points the agent to the alternative action: "read its event_id instead."

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