calendly_schedule

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: fallback to a pre-filled URL on failure. However, it does not explain the success response, side effects, permission requirements, or potential errors. Given no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 long, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a critical fallback condition. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers the main action and fallback, but missing details about the success return value, error responses, and confirmation behavior. For a tool with no output schema, this information is important for the agent to handle the result correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the description does not need to add extra meaning. It adds no new information beyond the schema, but the schema already suffices. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it schedules a meeting via the Scheduling API and mentions a fallback behavior (returning a pre-filled URL on failure). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendly_cancel or calendly_list_available_slots, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (scheduling) but does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or alternative tools is provided, leaving some ambiguity for the AI agent.

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