Designate a source calendar as the default destination for newly created events, so additions are saved to the intended calendar automatically.
Set the default source calendar for new events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Source-calendar id to make the default for new events. | |
| frameId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.7.1Input schema / properties / id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds one useful behavioral detail: the default applies only to 'new events,' implying existing events are unaffected. It does not disclose side effects like replacing the previous default, permissions needed, or failure behavior.
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?
One sentence with no filler; the action and scope are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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 is simple, but it is not fully specified: frameId is undocumented, there is no usage context, and no side-effect or prerequisite information is provided. Since there is no output schema, the description must carry more weight, but it only covers the basic action. It would be complete if it explained frameId and when to use the tool.
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 schema documents `id` as the source-calendar id, but `frameId` has no description, and schema coverage is only 50%. The description does not mention either parameter, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. The agent is left to guess what frameId does and when it is needed.
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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and a clear resource ('default source calendar for new events'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is distinguishable from siblings like skylight_update_calendar or skylight_categorize_source_calendar because it specifically targets the default-source-calendar setting.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as skylight_update_calendar, skylight_create_source_calendar, or skylight_categorize_source_calendar. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context hints beyond the imperative statement. This is effectively no usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.