set_active_calendars

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it replaces the full active set (not a merge), and it rejects empty lists to prevent accidental account disconnection. With annotations only stating readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, this added context is essential and goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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 that front-load the core action, then add essential caveats. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 description covers purpose, behavior, parameter constraints, and the appropriate alternative for a boundary case. Since an output schema exists, omitting return-value details is appropriate. This is as complete as needed for a tool with two simple parameters.

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 compensate. It indirectly clarifies active_calendar_ids by explicitly stating the empty-list rejection (meaning at least one ID is required). It does not restate parameter names, but the operation context makes connection_id and the list of calendar IDs understandable. A slightly more explicit name would earn a 5.

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 operation: setting which calendars under a connection are active for syncing and use in rules/pages. It names the specific resource (calendars under a connection) and differentiates itself from the related disconnect_connection tool.

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 explicitly provides an alternative for the empty-list case, telling users to use disconnect_connection instead. This clear exclusion and pointer to a sibling tool makes the usage context unambiguous.

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