dooray_calendar_post_event

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, but it only says 'register' without explaining mutating effects, confirmation requirements, defaults, validation behavior, or failure modes. The confirm parameter in the schema covers the write gate, but the description itself does not add behavioral context.

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 short sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though the phrasing 'dooray events' is slightly awkward and no structural differentiation is attempted.

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 15 parameters, recurrence options, a confirmation gate, and no output schema, a six-word description is not complete enough. It does not explain calendar selection, how recurrence fields interact, or what happens after creation, leaving the agent to infer important contextual behavior.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and it does not harmfully omit anything given the schema's completeness.

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 uses a specific verb ('register') and a clear resource ('dooray events on a calendar'), making it plain that this tool creates calendar events. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like dooray_calendar_events, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this tool is for creating/registering calendar events, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. No exclusions or 'use X instead' direction is provided.

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