skylight_add_webcal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'subscribe', which implies a state change, but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing subscriptions, if the frame must exist, or if the operation is reversible. Key behavioral context is missing.

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 a single sentence, achieving conciseness. It could be slightly more informative (e.g., note that frameId is optional) without losing brevity, but it is not verbose.

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 tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what happens after subscription (e.g., events appear), error conditions, or limits. For a simple operation, this is still incomplete.

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 description coverage is 50% (sync_url has a description). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters. The 'frameId' parameter lacks any description in both the schema and the tool description, leaving its purpose unclear despite being optional.

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 action ('Subscribe the frame to a webcal/ICS calendar URL'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like skylight_create_source_calendar and skylight_link_apple_calendar by focusing on webcal subscriptions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., skylight_create_source_calendar or skylight_update_calendar). There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or expected outcomes.

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