calendars_unselect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies state (stops counting), requires a specific scope, and is the counterpart to a select operation. This gives the agent a reasonable understanding of the behavior, though it could mention that it is not a destructive irreversible action.

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 with three short sentences. Every sentence adds essential information: the action, the required scope, and the relationship to the sibling tool. No fluff or redundancy.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose, preconditions, and relationship. It could be slightly more complete by briefly noting the effect on existing bookings or the expected output, but overall it is adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning to the parameter 'calendar_key', but it does not. The parameter is only defined as a required string with minLength 1. The description does not clarify what value to provide (e.g., calendar ID or name), leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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 purpose: 'Stop counting a calendar against booking-page availability.' It uses a specific verb ('stop counting') and identifies the resource ('calendar'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'calendars_select' by naming it as the inverse.

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 scope ('booking_pages:write') and notes that this tool is the inverse of 'carly calendars select', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives beyond the inverse.

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