create_users_hidden_calendar_remove

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little new behavioral context. The pointer to consult the GET or /schema endpoint is a request-construction tip rather than a disclosure of side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites.

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 description is brief and front-loaded with the core action. Including the endpoint and a single-line argument description adds value without redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 an opaque body parameter and an output schema, the description provides the essential pointer to schema discovery, which is the main missing piece of information. It does not detail authentication, exact removal semantics, or side effects, but annotations and the output schema cover some of that burden.

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?

The input schema only defines 'body' as an open object with additionalProperties true, giving no field-level guidance. The description labels it as 'Request payload' and directs the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to learn the expected fields, which is crucial given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states a specific verb and object ('Remove hidden calendar items') and includes the exact endpoint POST /users/hidden/calendar/remove, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_users_hidden_by_section_remove by explicitly naming the 'calendar' resource.

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 description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to remove hidden calendar items. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contexts where it should not be used, leaving some room for inference. The instruction to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint is a helpful preparation step but not a selection guideline.

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