tc_calendar

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains that ok=true only means accepted and effects must be verified by reading state, that several nav actions are unverifiable because nothing readable changes, and it defines target_check, target_hidden, failure_context and the meaning of empty reads. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a mutation tool and goes well beyond structured fields.

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 purpose and action list are front-loaded, but the shared verification preamble is dense and the phrase "The command is accepted, but nothing readable about the field changes, so this cannot be verified" is repeated verbatim across four actions. That repetition consumes space without adding per-action 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?

For a complex, unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: verification limits, target/connection echo behavior, address-validation caveats, and failure_context semantics. Ref re-use and expiry guidance are also present, leaving only small edge cases unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: ref is defined as the client selector with connection_id as the fallback, and year/month/day are tied to the goto_date action with expected return fields. Minor gaps remain, such as month numbering and the meaning of default-null dates, but the critical parameters are covered.

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 names a specific resource (a calendar field) and enumerates every action with a concrete verb and effect (move to next month/year, go to a date). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by routing element-level checks to tc_field and parent traversal to tc_app, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is explicitly routed: for date movement use tc_calendar(action="goto_date") rather than the month/year nav actions, and ref/connection_id selection is described with a pointer to tc_session(action="list_connections"). Alternative sibling tools (tc_field, tc_app) are named with the exact actions they cover.

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