export_event_ics

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it generates an ICS string but does not mention idempotency, authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., if event not found), or output format details beyond the name.

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 two short sections. Every sentence adds value: the main sentence states what it does, and the args section defines the two parameters. 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?

For a simple tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter hints. It is mostly complete, though could note that at least one parameter is typically needed.

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 0%, meaning no descriptions in schema. The description adds minimal semantics: event_id is a Luma API ID with example, url is a URL or ID. However, it does not clarify that at least one is needed or how they relate, and both are optional with default null.

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 generates an ICS calendar string for a Luma event, using the verb 'Generate' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_event (retrieves details) and search_events (searches).

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 implies usage for adding to calendar but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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