preview_create_personal_calendar_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the explicit statement that it does not create or modify, which is consistent but not substantial additional context. It does not describe what the preview returns or any validation behavior, but the existing annotations lower the burden.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and side-effect free nature. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, though it could have been expanded with parameter explanations without becoming verbose. For conciseness alone, it scores well.

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 tool lacks an output schema, so the description should explain what the preview returns. It does not. Additionally, with no parameter semantics provided, the description is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with appropriate argument values. Given the tool's simplicity, the description could have been more complete but leaves significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptive text for any of the five parameters. The description gives no explanation of what 'name', 'timestart', 'repeats', 'duration', or 'description' mean in this context. With zero parameter documentation from both schema and description, the agent is left to infer semantics from the parameter names alone, which is inadequate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Previsualiza un evento personal') and explicitly clarifies it does not create or modify anything in Moodle. This distinguishes it from the actual creation tool, though it does not explicitly reference sibling tools like 'create_personal_calendar_event' or 'preview_delete_personal_calendar_event' by name. The purpose is clear and not a tautology.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description only says what it does and that it has no side effects, but does not advise an agent to use it before creating an event or mention any alternatives. The sibling naming pattern suggests a dry-run, but this is not explicitly stated.

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