propose_event

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the tool writes nothing, enumerates what the response contains (draft, warnings for past/far-future/missing-end dates, overlapping events, likely duplicate), and explains that 'source' is persisted into the resulting event description plus a 'now' override for testing.

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 critical constraint is front-loaded in the first clause, and most sentences carry distinct actionable information. It is slightly rambling, with embedded parentheticals (the email example, the date-resolution aside) that interrupt the flow without adding much.

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 an 8-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the workflow, the return payload, and the handoff to create_event. It falls short only on the pass-through fields (calendar, location, description) that an agent must still guess about.

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 compensate. It explains summary, start/end, source, and now meaningfully, but leaves calendar, location, and description undocumented — three of eight parameters with no semantic guidance anywhere.

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 (check/propose) and resource (calendar event) and explicitly frames it as a dry-run preceding create_event — 'Check a calendar event BEFORE creating it... Writes nothing.' An agent can distinguish it from create_event, check_conflicts, and find_free_time without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('one an agent read out of an email'), the preprocessing condition (resolve 'the 18th' to a full date first), and the downstream rule 'only call create_event with create_event_args once the user agrees.' It names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it.

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