apple_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists action names and gives no hint that some actions (create_event, delete_event, modify_event) are mutating or that protected actions require confirmation, despite the schema's confirm parameter indicating this. The description fails to convey side effects or safety behavior.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Control Apple Calendar') and concisely enumerates the actions. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundant filler or unnecessary detail.

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?

This tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no information about return values, error handling, or how the actions work together. The sparse description is inadequate for a multi-action tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description's action list is redundant with the schema's detailed action enum descriptions and does not add extra meaning to parameters like date, hour, or cal_name. It neither helps nor hinders parameter understanding 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 identifies 'Apple Calendar' as the resource and lists the eight supported actions, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools for other Apple apps. However, it stops at naming actions without elaborating on the exact operations, so it is clear but not deeply specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apple_reminders or apple_notes. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred use cases. The schema's action descriptions provide per-action context, but the tool-level description lacks usage direction.

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