study_export_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety direction is partly covered. The description adds real value by clarifying the write target is a local file with no publish/subscribe side effect, but omits whether an existing file is overwritten or appended to, which matters for a defaulted filename like 'edinburgh-study.ics'.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the positive purpose is front-loaded and the disambiguating constraint follows immediately. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 three-parameter local write tool this is close to sufficient, and the no-publish caveat covers the main behavioral risk. Still missing: what the call returns (no output schema exists), the expected date format, and overwrite semantics for the target file.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It hints that records come from a deadline/event range and that output is an .ics file, but never states the format of start/end or that filename is the local output path, leaving two required parameters semantically undefined.

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: 'Write observed deadline/event records to a local .ics file.' An agent can tell this exports rather than ingests, which implicitly separates it from sibling study_import_calendar. It stops short of naming that sibling or the agenda/deadlines tools it draws data from, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 negative clause 'Does not publish or subscribe any calendar' usefully rules out the network-publishing interpretation an agent might otherwise assume. However, there is no positive when-to-use guidance and no reference to study_import_calendar as the inverse operation, leaving the choice between export/import/agenda to inference.

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