calendar_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the supported actions, date format recommendations, read defaults, and the attendee limitation. However, it lacks information on error handling, permission requirements, or behavior for write operations beyond stating defaults. This is adequate but leaves gaps for a 19-parameter 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?

The description is four sentences, each adding value: purpose, format recommendation, reading default, and a critical limitation. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundancy. No fluff or unnecessary details.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (19 parameters, multiple actions, recurring events, alarms), the description is brief and does not cover key aspects like how to handle recurring events (span, occurrenceStart), error scenarios, or permission needs. The attendee limitation is the only non-obvious detail. For a tool of this complexity, the description is incomplete.

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 description's baseline is 3. It adds value by recommending date format, explaining read defaults, and clarifying endDate behavior for all-day events. However, for most parameters (e.g., span, recurrenceRules, alarms), the description provides no additional semantics beyond the schema descriptions.

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 begins with 'Manages Apple Calendar events: read, create, update, delete,' explicitly stating the verb (manages) and resource (events) with all supported actions. It distinguishes from sibling tools calendar_calendars and calendar_free_slots, which manage calendars and find free slots respectively, by focusing on event operations.

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 provides practical usage guidance, including recommended date format ('YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss') and default reading window ('today + 14 days'). It also notes a key limitation ('Attendee participation cannot be changed') that prevents misuse. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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