create_time_block

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

Annotations only say the operation is not read-only/no idempotence/no destruction, but the description adds value by revealing that this is an unofficial workaround through /doc/create and that the result must be manually verified. 'EXPERIMENTAL' warns about reliability beyond what the structured annotations provide.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that conveys experimental status, the endpoint, auth requirement, and post-call verification without excess wording. Every clause carries useful operational information.

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 four-parameter experimental write tool, the description covers the essential invocation context: the endpoint, token requirement, risk, and verification step. An output schema exists and param coverage is complete, so return values and parameter details are already handled elsewhere.

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 description coverage is 100% and each of the four parameters already has a clear format description (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD', 'HH:mm'). The tool description does not need to repeat parameter details and adds no additional semantic meaning 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 begins with a specific action and resource: 'Create a time block' and further identifies the exact implementation route via /doc/create. It also flags a critical distinction from sibling tools by noting no official endpoint exists, so an agent can tell it apart from create_task/create_event.

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?

It provides clear context for use: the tool is experimental, has no official endpoint, requires a Full Access Token, and should be verified in the app. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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