Apply an approved schedule

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the two-phase CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED flow, the re-check of busy time immediately before writing, and the fact that newly-busy slots are skipped rather than double-booked. This is precisely the behavioral context an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the guardrail flow and the safety behavior. No filler and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what the first call returns (confirm_token plus a summary), and it fully explains the write-time safety behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning about the confirm_token sequencing and about skip_activities by explaining that busy time is re-checked so declined/conflicting activities are dropped. That is workflow semantics beyond the per-field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create calendar events for a plan') and distinguishes itself from the sibling propose_schedule by describing the apply step versus the proposal step. An agent can tell it apart from create_event and propose_schedule without opening any 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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite (plan_id from propose_schedule) and the exact two-call sequence, including the condition that the token is supplied only after the user approves. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over raw create_event, but the workflow routing is clear.

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