discover_calendars

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it discloses the auto-activation side effect and the plan's calendar limit. The annotations already indicate mutation potential, and the description aligns with that, showing no contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences earn their place: the first states the action and scope, and the second explains the important activation behavior and limit. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and an output schema, and the description covers purpose, input source, and side effects. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The only parameter, connection_id, is described as coming from list_connections, which adds meaning beyond the raw integer schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well for the single parameter.

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 starts with a specific action and resource: 'Re-discover the calendars under one connection.' It also adds scope (one connection, connection_id from list_connections) and a distinguishing behavioral detail (auto-activation), making it clear what the tool does and how it differs from simple listing tools.

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 by instructing the caller to use connection_id from list_connections and explains the effect ('Newly visible calendars are auto-activated'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or 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.