Export follow-ups to a calendar file

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: the file is written next to the tracker, the tracker itself is untouched, and overdue follow-ups are mapped onto today. Combined with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true this is coherent, though it doesn't state the filename or whether an existing .ics is overwritten.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and artifact, with the alternative pushed to the end. Density is high but nearly every clause carries information; a slight syntax parse cost comes from the embedded parenthetical about overdue items.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers side effects and the fallback path. Minor gaps remain around file naming and overwrite behavior for a repeated idempotent export.

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 100% and the single 'days' parameter is fully documented there, so the baseline applies. The description never mentions the look-ahead window, leaving a reader of the prose alone to wonder how far ahead follow-ups are exported.

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?

States a precise verb and output artifact ('write the open follow-ups as an .ics file next to the tracker') plus the destination use case (Calendar, Outlook, Google Calendar). That clearly distinguishes it from followups_due, which returns the same data as tool output rather than a file.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: if the client has a calendar tool, add events there instead, since followups_due carries the same data. It does not address the sibling calendar_events or explain when a file export is preferable to reading calendar events, which keeps it 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.