calendar_draft

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

Adds real value beyond annotations: it clarifies the operation is a local draft that writes nothing to iCloud, and discloses format constraints (UTC offsets required for timed values, exclusive all-day end dates). Consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; no contradiction.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and local-only scope, followed by format rules and the confirmation step. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description refers to 'returned calendar and event details' so the agent knows a draft payload comes back. Combined with the local-only scope and format rules, it is largely complete for a single nested-argument draft 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry semantics. It explains calendar_id ('destination calendar name') and start/end formats (UTC offsets, exclusive end dates), which is meaningful guidance, though title/location/description fields are left to inference.

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 ('Prepare a local draft') and resource ('standalone personal event'), and immediately scopes it as local-only ('creates nothing in iCloud'). This cleanly differentiates it from creation siblings like calendar_create.

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 clear workflow context: it 'creates nothing in iCloud' and instructs the agent to 'Show the returned calendar and event details to the user for confirmation,' implying it precedes an actual create. No explicit named alternative or exclusion is given, so not a 5.

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