create_sync_rule

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that the target must be writable, clarifies the visibility_mode enum values and default, explains mirror_prefix with an example, and explicitly notes that 'Mirrors the source's current events into the target on creation.' This anticipates side effects and parameter consequences.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by prerequisites and parameter semantics in a logical order. Every sentence adds necessary information; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 the five parameters, zero schema descriptions, and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, prerequisites, and immediate behavior on creation. No essential information is missing for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: source_calendar_id and target_calendar_id are sourced from list_calendars, visibility_mode enumerates its three options with meaning and default, mirror_prefix is exemplified, and enabled is explained with the paused option. Every parameter is semantically covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a sync rule that mirrors events from source_calendar_id onto target_calendar_id.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like delete_sync_rule and run_sync_rule.

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 usage context: calendar IDs come from list_calendars and the target must be writable. It also explains parameter options and how to create the rule paused. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like run_sync_rule or list_sync_rules, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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