Create calendar

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds two genuinely non-obvious behaviors on top: the implicit default weekly model (Mon–Fri 08:00-12:00;13:00-17:00) and the transactional precondition requiring an open unit of work.

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?

Two short clauses, no filler, and the most surprising fact (the implicit default weekly model) is front-loaded. The trailing precondition is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 5-param mutation tool with a full schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the two things structured data can't: implicit defaulting and the required transactional context. It omits error behavior and how the created calendar is identified, which are minor given the output schema exists.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by defining the meaning of an omitted 'week' parameter — a default value the schema does not state. That is real added semantic value for the one parameter whose absence matters most.

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 ('Creates a calendar') and immediately clarifies the default modeling behavior when 'week' is omitted. It does not name sibling tools (rillsoft_calendar_update, rillsoft_calendar_source_import), so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

The phrase 'Inside an open unit of work only' is a real precondition that tells the agent when the call is legal, which is more than most definitions offer. However, there is no guidance on choosing this tool over calendar_source_import or calendar_update, and no statement about what to do if no unit of work is open.

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