calendar_read_draft

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is low. The description still adds real value beyond them: the operation is purely local and does not contact iCloud, and it discloses the returned payload (status and review hash).

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the network constraint placed as a concise qualifier at the end.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers what it does, that it is local, and roughly what it returns. Only the sibling-routing information is missing, which is a minor gap.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 0% – draft_id has no textual documentation, though its UUID pattern partially conveys the expected format. The description adds nothing about the identifier, so this sits at the baseline rather than above it.

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+resource ('Read a local calendar draft') and even names what is returned (status, review hash). It distinguishes itself from calendar_read by the word 'draft' and from calendar_drafts by being singular, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The clause 'Does not contact iCloud' hints at an offline/local use case, but the description never says how this differs from calendar_read (event read) or calendar_drafts (list drafts), leaving the agent to infer selection.

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