Create calendar entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the write nature and the two-step preview/confirm workflow, which is genuinely useful. But it omits permissions/auth requirements, side effects, and failure behavior, and its 'token from the preview' phrasing is unclear and partially conflicts with the schema's boolean confirm=true, leaving real ambiguity.

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 core action and scoping, then the write/preview caveat. No filler, though the second sentence's 'token from the preview' phrase adds ambiguity rather than value.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with 46% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It covers the basic shape but leaves most parameters and any notion of the returned result (there is no output schema to defer to) unaddressed.

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 coverage is only 46%, below the 50% threshold, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It touches only calendar defaulting, optional matter linkage, attendees, and event type, while leaving end_at, all_day, location, description, send_email_notification, and the distinction between attendee_contact_ids and attendee_calendar_ids unexplained across 13 parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a calendar entry ... in the user's calendar') and enumerates entry kinds (hearing, deadline, meeting), so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling write/list tools (clio_calendar_entry_update, clio_calendar_entries_list), which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Gives concrete operational context: 'Write operation – preview first, then confirm with the token from the preview.' This tells the agent how to sequence the call. However it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, and its 'always preview first' framing sits in mild tension with the schema's advice to call with confirm=true directly when the request is complete.

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