manage-calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It details side effects (dawn/dusk recovery, bastion turns), the 'Writes report before → after' convention, GM-only writes, and the effect of negative values for rewinding. This is comprehensive for a calendar manipulation tool.

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 dense yet well-organized, front-loading the resource and then systematically explaining each action with its parameters and effects. Every sentence contributes essential information, avoiding redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what each action does, the return content for 'read' (including formatted strings), side effects, permissions, and linkage to a related tool. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without additional inference.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it groups parameters by action (rounds/minutes/hours/days/seconds for advance; year/month/day/hour/minute for set) and explains that omitted parts in 'set' retain their values. This clarifies interaction semantics the schema does not convey, justifying a score above baseline.

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 identifies the tool as managing the in-world date and time for D&D 5e, with three distinct actions (read, advance, set) and a precise resource (dnd5e 6.0 calendar). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the only related configuration tool (configure-dnd5e-settings) and specifying what each action does, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 explicitly explains when to use each action: 'read' for reporting, 'advance' for moving time and triggering events, 'set' for jumping to a date/time. It also directs users to configure-dnd5e-settings for enabling the calendar, and notes that writes are GM-only, providing clear context for appropriate usage.

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