calendars_select

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a mutation (marking a calendar), requires a specific scope, and has an account-wide effect that persists across booking pages. It does not mention whether the action is reversible or the exact timing of effect, but the included details are valuable beyond the schema.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second provides scope and behavioral context. No redundant or verbose content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior, required scope, and account-wide effect. It is missing information on return values or error handling, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward selection tool. Sibling 'calendars_list' can supply the calendar_key.

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 has 1 parameter (calendar_key) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly define the parameter, only implying it refers to a calendar within an integration. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not add meaningful guidance on its format, source, or constraints 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 tool's action: 'Mark a calendar as counting against booking-page availability', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It also provides the colloquial name 'Check for conflicts on' and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'calendars_unselect' which likely reverses this action.

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 mentions the required OAuth scope ('booking_pages:write'), providing a clear usage prerequisite. It also notes the account-wide effect, which helps set context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., calendars_unselect) or provide scenarios where it should not be used.

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