skylight_create_source_calendar

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Create' does not contradict the safety profile. However, the description adds little beyond 'advanced' and 'raw provider attributes'; it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or response behavior. The annotation coverage lowers the burden, so 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of omitting important usage and parameter details. Still, for what it contains, the structure is clean and efficient.

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?

This is an advanced tool with a free-form nested attributes object, no output schema, and many calendar-related siblings. The description only states the core purpose and gives no guidance on frameId, attribute construction, return values, or how this relates to other calendar tools. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 only 50%: the attributes parameter is documented, but frameId has no description. The phrase 'raw provider attributes' mostly paraphrases the schema's 'Provider-specific source-calendar attributes' and does not compensate for the undocumented frameId or explain how to construct the nested attributes object. An agent gets minimal added meaning from the description.

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 ('Create') and the resource ('a source calendar') with a specific input source ('raw provider attributes'). It is distinguishable from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like skylight_add_webcal or skylight_update_calendar.

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?

The word '(advanced)' hints that this is for specialized raw-provider use, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no references to alternative tools such as skylight_add_webcal or skylight_update_calendar. An agent cannot reliably decide when this tool is the right choice.

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