calendar_entities_link

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it flags 'SIDE-EFFECTFUL' up front, discloses idempotency ('upserts the label on repeat calls'), and explains the no-op removal case ('removing an absent link is a no-op'). It also documents return shapes ('Returns `{link}` or `{removed}`'), which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a mutation with no annotations.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded: the critical 'SIDE-EFFECTFUL' warning opens the text, and every subsequent clause adds distinct value (upsert, no-op, usage context, return shape). No padding or repetition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the mutation semantics, idempotency, no-op behavior, usage context, and return values. Nothing an agent needs 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 the schema already documents from, to, label, and remove in detail. The description adds the 'A feeds B' example and the remove behavior, but this is marginal over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Create or update a directed dependency edge between two entities... or remove one.' It even gives a concrete example ('A feeds B'), so an agent immediately understands the operation. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from entity-level siblings like calendar_entities_add/update, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides clear context for when the tool matters: 'Used by calendar_events_conflicts/calendar_events_list to flag overlaps across connected entities (one hop, either direction).' It also states the remove switch. However, it offers no explicit exclusions or comparison to the entity CRUD siblings, so no 5.

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