connect_ics

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

The description discloses that the feed is fetched and parsed to validate it, adding a key behavioral trait beyond the annotations. It also clarifies read-only nature of the calendar and its inability to be a sync target. It does not detail error handling or state changes, but that is partially covered by the tool name and output schema.

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 three focused sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the main action, then provides the URL format, validation behavior, and a key capability constraint, all earning their 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 one parameter, an output schema, and clear validation/source-target semantics, the description is largely complete. It could mention that a connection is created or that the feed must be publicly accessible without authentication, but these are mostly implied and not critical gaps.

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?

The schema provides only a parameter name with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by specifying that feed_url must be a public ICS feed URL using https or webcal .ics link, adding meaningful format and access constraints.

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 connects a calendar from a public ICS feed URL, with the specific verb 'connect' and resource 'read-only calendar'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like connect_icloud by specifying the ICS/webcal format.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: for public ICS feed URLs, and explicitly notes the calendar is a sync source but not a target. It does not name alternative tools but implies the boundary well enough for selection.

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