apple_calendar_add_alarm

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

Annotations already declare the operation is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent, open-world), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail, that it is a *display* alarm, but says nothing about whether existing alarms are replaced or appended, permission requirements, or error behavior on an unknown uid.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core action comes first and the critical sign convention for minutes follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too sparse: it omits how the target event is identified, whether the alarm replaces or adds to existing alarms, and what happens on failure. The minutes clarification is the only real content beyond the tool name.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only clarifies one of three parameters (minutes: negative means before the event). The required uid and calendar parameters are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so an agent cannot tell whether uid is an event id or something else, or how calendar scopes the lookup.

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 (add a display alarm to an event), which is clearly distinct from siblings like apple_calendar_set_recurrence, apple_calendar_set_url, and apple_calendar_update_event. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource is specific enough for an agent to select correctly.

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?

Usage is only implied: you add an alarm to an existing event identified by uid/calendar. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of prerequisites (the event must already exist), and no pointer to alternatives such as updating the event itself. Adequate but thin.

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