add_selected_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the HTTP method constraint (POST only) which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what the output schema contains (which exists but isn't referenced). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler. The reference to another tool is 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 required params, clear siblings), the description covers the key points: purpose, HTTP restriction, and how to verify state. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values. Adequate for its domain.

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 100% for the 3 parameters, each documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any new detail beyond what's in the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high; the description adds no extra value for parameters.

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 'Mark a calendar for conflict detection', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `remove_selected_calendar` by being its inverse, and hints at its place in a workflow alongside `list_calendars`.

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 explicitly notes this is 'POST only, no GET' and directs to `list_calendars()` to check status. It provides clear context for when to use it (to enable conflict detection) and how to verify the effect, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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