add_custom_calendar_time_intelligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool builds multiple measure types (TD/PY/PYTD/prev-week/MAT) based on specific index columns (DayIndex/MonthIndex/Year/PeriodIndex) and lists the supported calendar kinds. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects like overwriting existing measures, required permissions, or whether it's a read-only or mutating operation. The generated measures are clearly stated, so it's fairly transparent.

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 two sentences and conveys the essential purpose, supported kinds, and measure outputs without wasted words. It is dense but well-structured, leading with the main action.

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 has no output schema and no annotations. The description comprehensively covers the tool's input requirements and output measure types. It could mention return behavior or exact naming of generated measures, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps like prerequisites are implied by the column references.

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 input schema covers 4 of 5 parameters (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the kind enum values but adds context about the required DayIndex/MonthIndex/Year/PeriodIndex columns on the calendar table, which enriches the understanding of baseMeasure and calendarTable. It doesn't add further detail for sessionId or parameter syntax.

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 tool's function: generating integer-index time intelligence for custom calendars. It lists specific calendar types (445/454/544/weekly/13-period) and the measures built, which differentiates it from sibling tools like add_time_intelligence or add_calendar_based_time_intelligence by emphasizing the custom calendar context.

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 identifies the use case: custom calendars where built-in time intelligence fails. It implicitly contrasts with built-in TI but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not scenarios beyond 'built-in TI breaks'. This is clear context but lacks explicit sibling tool exclusions.

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