schedule_calendar_botSchedule a bot to join a calendar event by providing its event_id, or remove a scheduled bot from an event with the unschedule action.
action=schedule sends a bot to a specific calendar event; action=unschedule removes it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | schedule | |
| event_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says a bot is 'sent' or 'removes it'. It does not clarify whether unschedule destroys the bot, changes the event, is idempotent, or requires prerequisites. The ambiguity between removing a calendar association and deleting a bot is a material gap.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action=schedule behavior and then the action=unschedule counterpart. Every element earns its place and there is no fluff.
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?
The tool is simple (two parameters, one required) and the core call is clear, but with no output schema or annotations the description leaves missing details such as expected result, error behavior when the event or bot does not exist, and whether there is any effect on the event itself.
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 add meaning; it does explain what both action enum values do. event_id is not detailed beyond 'specific calendar event', which is thinly supplemented by the parameter name and required flag rather than by the description.
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 names a specific resource (a bot relative to a calendar event) and concrete verbs: 'sends a bot' and 'removes it'. It is clear what the tool does and is distinguishable from get_bot_status/remove_bot by the event targeting, though 'removes it' could momentarily be read as deleting the bot resource itself.
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 action-value mapping implies when to call the tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer schedule_calendar_bot over create_bot or remove_bot, and no conditions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.