Import schedule orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does useful work: it discloses that no calendar is contacted, that unexpandable recurrence rules are reported rather than stored, and that over-capacity items are stored and surfaced in conflicts — real partial-success semantics an agent needs. Missing are atomicity/return-shape details, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Five short sentences, roughly 50 words, with failure semantics front-loaded after the purpose line. Nothing is padded, though the opening sentence is cryptic enough to require a second reading.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers the essential unknown: partial-failure behavior on recurrence and capacity. It leaves the response shape of "reported" and "conflicts" implicit, which is the main residual gap.

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 100% for the single orders parameter, so baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning by equating each item with a "schedule_meeting body plus external_id," letting an agent reuse the sibling tool's schema knowledge rather than re-deriving it.

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 establishes a specific operation: bulk creation of schedule orders, with each item being a schedule_meeting body plus an external_id. The reference to schedule_meeting ties it to a sibling with clearer semantics, but the phrasing "Bulk path for a calendar you have already read" is elliptical and never plainly says it creates/upserts schedule entries.

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?

"Bulk path" and "a calendar you have already read" imply when to reach for this over the single-item schedule_meeting, but the alternative is never named as an alternative, and no explicit when-not condition is given. The use case is implied rather than stated.

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