calendar_entities_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags SIDE-EFFECTFUL, declares non-idempotency, and specifies that a duplicate name throws — exactly the failure mode an agent needs. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether the operation is reversible.

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 with the critical warning (SIDE-EFFECTFUL, not idempotent) front-loaded; no filler and every clause carries information.

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 4-param creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it creates, the side effect, the duplicate-name failure, the return shape `{entity}`, and the follow-up call. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the case-insensitive uniqueness constraint on `name` rather than adding new semantic detail about `kind`, `notes`, or `timezone`.

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 a new tracked entity') and defines the concept with concrete examples (server, delivery van, store location, room) so an agent knows exactly what qualifies. It is clearly distinguishable from calendar_entities_update/delete/list/link siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: 'Use `calendar_entities_link` afterwards to record dependencies for conflict detection.' This tells the agent the tool is a prerequisite step in a workflow, but it does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. when the entity already exists, or as an alternative to update).

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