aula_calendar_add_event

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare the write/non-destructive/non-idempotent profile), the description discloses two real behavioral traits: the event's visibility is private to the user, and creating it triggers notifications according to the user's notification settings. It does not cover failure modes or whether duplicates are permitted.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and visibility scope, followed by side-effect and format notes. Every sentence carries information; nothing is repeated verbatim across sentences.

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 4-parameter, non-destructive create tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, visibility, notification side effect and date format. Minor gaps remain around return value and duplicate handling, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already carries titles, formats and examples for all four parameters. The description reinforces the timezone requirement and localizes the offset for Argentina (-03:00), which adds modest value but largely restates the 'inicio' schema description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Agrega un evento personal al calendario del aula virtual') and adds a scope qualifier ('que solo ve el usuario') that separates it from shared/public posting tools like the forum siblings. It never names a sibling, so differentiation is by resource type rather than explicit contrast.

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?

Concrete use cases are given ('un recordatorio de un parcial o una entrega'), which tells the agent the intended context. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative, so it stops short of full routing instruction.

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