create-calendar

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

The description states 'Create a new calendar' which implies a constructive, non-destructive operation, but the annotation declares destructiveHint=true. This is a direct contradiction. No additional behavioral traits (permissions, reversibility) are disclosed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a tip. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the tip provides a practical example. No wasted words.

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?

Despite the complexity of the input schema (nested object, 4 parameters), the description is minimal. It omits any mention of return values (no output schema), user context (which user's calendar?), or important behaviors like confirm parameter. Leaves the agent with 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?

Schema description coverage is high (75%), so baseline is 3. The description adds an example body ({ name: 'My Calendar', color: 'auto' }) and lists available colors, but does not cover other schema-less parameters like confirm, includeHeaders, or excludeResponse. It adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'create' and resource 'calendar', and specifies 'for a user' and 'personal calendar'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update-calendar or delete-calendar by focusing solely on creation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create-calendar-event or update-calendar. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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