exclude_occurrence

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the effect (drops a single occurrence, rest of series unchanged) and reveals that the response includes series_remaining and overrides for observability. However, it does not state whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or error behavior, which are 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?

The description is three sentences long and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes a concrete example and explains the response fields efficiently. The final phrase 'so the rest-of-series-unchanged claim is observable' is slightly verbose but adds meaningful context. No redundant filler.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is relatively complete in explaining the core behavior and the occurrence format. However, it omits details about uid and calendar, and does not address error scenarios or how to identify the target series. Given the complexity of a recurring-series mutation, some gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It thoroughly explains 'occurrence' (exact format with UTC offset, bare local times may not match) and mentions the response fields, but it does not explain 'uid' (presumably the event's unique ID) or 'calendar' (optional calendar context). Two of three parameters are undocumented, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 tool's function: 'Drop a single occurrence of a recurring series (EXDATE).' It uses a specific verb (drop) and resource (single occurrence of a recurring series), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like move_occurrence or delete_event by focusing on exclusions rather than deletions or moves.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (for dropping an occurrence from a recurring series) and gives specific instructions on how to format the occurrence parameter (must be the exact start as returned by list_events with UTC offset). It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the usage scenario is well implied.

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