calendar.entities.add

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it leads with SIDE-EFFECTFUL, discloses non-idempotence, duplicate-name failure, and return shape. This goes well beyond what the schema reveals.

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?

Four tight sentences, each earning its place: side-effect alert, definition/examples, uniqueness/failure behavior, return value, and next-step routing. It is front-loaded with the most critical warning.

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 simple 4-param create tool with no output schema, it covers behavior, errors, return shape, and follow-up workflow. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 already documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds semantic context for the entity resource but no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly identifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('new tracked entity'), defines what an entity is with concrete examples, and is distinct from siblings like calendar.entities.update, delete, and link.

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?

States when to use it (to create a tracked thing) and explicitly directs the next step to calendar.entities.link for dependency recording. It doesn't enumerate exclusions (e.g., use update for existing entities), but the duplicate-name warning implies when not to re-create.

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