Calendar Permissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the potential side effect of prompting the user, which is useful, but it does not explain what 'check' returns, how access levels map to outcomes, or whether the tool modifies permissions. Partial disclosure only.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, the phrase 'used by the helper app' is vague and could be clarified without adding length. Still, overall structure is appropriately compact.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too lean. It does not mention return values, error cases, or how the check result influences later calendar operations. A permissions tool that may prompt the user requires more context for safe and effective use.

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 0% and the description ignores both parameters. It does not explain the meaning of 'access' (full vs writeOnly) or 'prompt' (whether to show the prompt). For a tool with two undocumented parameters, this is a critical gap.

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 checks and optionally prompts for Apple Calendar access, a distinct resource/action not covered by sibling tools which handle list/get/create/update/delete of events/calendars. This unambiguously differentiates it as a permissions utility.

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 this tool is relevant for permission management before calendar operations, but it never explicitly states when to invoke it (e.g., before creating events) or what alternatives exist. Usage context is implied by sibling names rather than stated.

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