calendar_acl_watch

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It omits important details: what happens on initialization, how long the watch lasts, whether it replaces existing watches, and what triggers notifications.

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?

Very concise single sentence with no fluff. Front-loaded with key action. However, slightly too brief for completeness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return value (e.g., channel resource), subscription management, or error conditions (e.g., invalid calendarId).

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?

All parameters are already well-documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra value (e.g., HTTPS requirement is already in schema). Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('watch for changes'), the resource ('ACL rules on a Google Calendar'), and the mechanism ('push notifications'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like calendar_acl_list or calendar_watch_events.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., polling via calendar_acl_list). No prerequisites or typical service patterns are mentioned.

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