Assign start and end times to an unscheduled task and generate its calendar event, making the task visible in your Teamleader Focus schedule.
Schedule a task in the calendar by giving it a start and end time. Returns the created calendar event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The task ID to schedule | |
| ends_at | Yes | End datetime (ISO 8601) | |
| starts_at | Yes | Start datetime (ISO 8601, e.g. 2016-02-04T16:00:00+00:00) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that a calendar event is created and returned, which is useful. It does not mention side effects on the task, whether an existing schedule is replaced, permissions, or failure behavior, leaving notable gaps for a mutation tool.
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, zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes: one states what the tool does, the other states what it returns.
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 simple three-parameter tool, the definition is nearly complete: all parameters are in the schema, the return value is described, and no output schema exists. The main missing context is prerequisite existence of the task and what happens if the task already has a scheduled event, but these are minor gaps.
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 parameters are already well documented with types and examples. The description adds only general 'start and end time' wording and no extra meaning about semantics, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema.
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 the operation: schedule a task in the calendar with a start and end time, and return the created calendar event. It names a specific verb and resource, and the task-to-calendar concept distinguishes it from generic event tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like create_event.
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 the tool is used when a task needs a calendar time slot, and the schema shows an existing task ID is required. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites such as the task needing to exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.