Create a new uniquely named event calendar with an optional #RRGGBB color, then use the returned name as the calendar argument for event tools. This action can be undone.
Create a new event calendar. Names must be unique. color: optional '#RRGGBB'. Returns its name;
use that as the calendar argument of the event tools. Can be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| color | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the uniqueness constraint, the color format, that the result is the name, and explicitly that the operation 'Can be undone' (reversibility). It omits auth/permission requirements and error behavior, but covers the essentials for a non-annotated mutation.
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?
Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, and every clause earns its place — constraint, format, return value, and reversibility each add distinct information with zero padding.
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?
No output schema and no annotations exist, yet the description still explains the return value (name) and its downstream use, plus key constraints. Complete enough for a two-parameter tool; only minor edge details like default color handling are absent.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents the uniqueness requirement for `name` and specifies the accepted format for `color` ('#RRGGBB'). Only a minor gap remains (default empty color behavior).
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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new event calendar'), which cleanly separates it from the many create_* siblings (create_event, create_list, create_reminder). An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.
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?
It gives useful workflow context ('use that as the `calendar` argument of the event tools') and a precondition ('Names must be unique'), but never states when to choose this over rename_calendar, set_calendar_color, or delete_calendar, nor any explicit alternatives. Adequate implied usage with clear gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.