calendar.entities.link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It flags itself as SIDE-EFFECTFUL, documents idempotent upsert behavior, states that removing an absent link is a no-op, and specifies the return shape `{link}` or `{removed}`. It also reveals the directed nature and one-hop traversal, which is rich context beyond the schema.

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 compact and information-dense: it covers the core action, the remove toggle, idempotency, no-op behavior, the use case, and the return type in four clauses. There is no filler, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

Given that the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: mutation semantics, edge direction, idempotency, no-op case, integration relevance, and return shape. The parameters are fully documented in the schema, so nothing is left ambiguous or 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?

The schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful behavioral semantics: `remove: true` toggles from create/update to removal, and the directed edge concept maps directly to from/to. It also clarifies that repeat calls upsert the label, which is not present in 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?

The description opens with a precise action: 'Create or update a directed dependency edge between two entities, or remove one'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling entity CRUD tools (add/update/delete/list) by naming the resource (edges) and the verbs (link/create/update/remove). The example 'A feeds B' concretely illustrates intent.

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?

It explicitly states the integration purpose: 'Used by calendar.events.conflicts/calendar.events.list to flag overlaps across connected entities (one hop, either direction)'. This gives a strong contextual signal for when the tool matters, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer its role.

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