create_event_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the auth requirement (Bearer PERSONAL_OAUTH_TOKEN) and enumerates specific 400/403 failure modes (DTSTART_MISSING, RECURRENCE_RULE_DATES_NOT_IN_UTC, EXCEEDS_MAX_OCCURRENCES, NOT_AUTHORIZED). It omits idempotency, side effects on the parent, and rate limits.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose and organizes the rest into labeled sections (endpoint, parameters, errors, auth), which is easy to scan. The PARAMETERS section largely duplicates the 100%-covered schema, so it earns its place only partially.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers endpoint, auth, prerequisites, and error conditions, which is close to what an agent needs. It does not describe the return value or the effect on the parent event's existing schedule.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description restates occurrence_duration and recurrence_rule and adds only 'with DTSTART' as marginal extra meaning over the schema.

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 and resource ('Create an event schedule for series parent') and clarifies it adds occurrences according to a recurrence pattern. Clearly distinguishable from sibling event tools, though it doesn't explicitly name the closest alternative (e.g. update_event).

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?

Provides a key prerequisite ('Requires series parent event') and scopes the operation to series parents, which implies when it applies. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or comparison to sibling tools like update_event or create_event.

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