make_calendar

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a calendar collection is created and optional fields can be set, but it does not disclose behavior on duplicate display_name, permission requirements, side effects, or response/error semantics. This is a mutation tool with no safety or failure hints.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then compactly lists the optional parameters. There is no filler, and every part adds useful orienting information.

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 schema fully covers parameter semantics, so the main gaps are the missing output schema and the lack of behavioral context for a mutation operation. The description gives a clear purpose and option list, but an agent still has to infer result format, error handling, and conflict behavior. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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 input schema already describes all five parameters, including defaults for components, so schema coverage is 100%. The description merely summarizes the optional fields without adding any new format, constraint, or interaction details beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a concrete resource ('a new calendar collection on the CalDAV server'), clearly distinguishing this action from siblings like create_event, update_calendar, and delete_calendar. The word 'new' also signals that this is for creation rather than modification.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool—when a new calendar collection is needed—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as update_calendar for existing collections or list_calendars for discovery. No prerequisites or exclusionary guidance are provided, so usage context is mostly inferred from the tool name and sibling list.

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