add_calendar_based_time_intelligence

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

The description discloses a significant caveat: the calendar/calendarColumnGroup objects are 'very new and absent from this build', leading to a stamped annotation workaround and instruction to confirm in Desktop. This is valuable behavioral information beyond a simple 'add' operation, though it does not discuss side effects or reversibility.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action and mechanics in the first sentence, followed by a brief parameter note and a crucial flag. No filler words, though the first sentence is dense.

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?

For a complex tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core mechanics and a critical implementation caveat. It lacks guidance on alternatives and explicit behavioral consequences, but the essential information for invoking the tool is present.

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 description adds context to the schema parameters by explaining the relationship: a calendar object on the primary date column and a calendarColumnGroup over associated period columns. It also reinforces that associatedColumns is comma-separated. With 75% schema coverage, this adds meaning beyond the bare field names.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('native (non-Gregorian) calendar-based time intelligence'), with specific details about creating a calendar object and calendarColumnGroup. This distinguishes it from generic time intelligence tools like add_time_intelligence or add_custom_calendar_time_intelligence.

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 description implies use for native/non-Gregorian calendars but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives such as add_custom_calendar_time_intelligence or add_time_intelligence. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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