make_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the output is text the caller must save themselves (the tool does not write a file), events are all-day, and reminders are attached. It does not cover date-format expectations or how missing inputs (e.g. no_gas, region) are handled.

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 sentences, zero waste; the artifact and its contents are front-loaded and the follow-up action comes second. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 10-parameter tool with no required params, no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify when to use the single-property path versus the portfolio field and what date formats are accepted. It explains the produced artifact well but leaves the agent guessing about input conventions.

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 coverage is only 30% across 10 parameters, so the description needed to compensate. It gives conceptual framing (registration window/deadline, per-certificate expiries, portfolio vs single property) but leaves the date format for epc/gas/eicr/eicr_due, the meaning of region and postcode, and the derivation of the registration window entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and artifact ('Build an iCalendar (.ics) file') plus the exact contents (registration window, deadline, gas/EICR/EPC expiries as all-day events with reminders). It is clearly distinguishable from registration_pack, check_property and check_portfolio, though it never names those siblings explicitly to route the agent.

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 implied through the post-generation instruction ('Save the returned text as rentready.ics and import it into Google, Apple or Outlook calendar'), which tells the agent what to do after calling but not when to pick this tool over the sibling checks. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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