Repeat events in later weeks

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Copy' action is consistent. The description adds a crucial behavioral requirement ('Confirm with the user first') and implies non-destructive copying of originals, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action and example, and ending with a critical confirmation instruction. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, a concrete example, and a key procedural requirement. It doesn't elaborate on how copies and weeks_between combine, but that is reasonably implied by 'later weeks' and the schema defaults.

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 fully documents ids, copies, and weeks_between. The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Copy') and resource ('calendar events') with a clear temporal scope ('to later weeks'). The title and example further clarify the exact use case, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_events or update_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 example ('repeat this week's workouts for the next 3 weeks') provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scenario is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately. The added 'Confirm with the user first' is a valuable procedural guideline.

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