calendar_list_watch

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'push notifications', omitting critical details: channel creation, callback URL requirements, channel expiration, the need to stop the channel via a dedicated tool, and any rate limits or scope.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks essential detail. It is not verbose, but the under-specification compromises clarity. A slightly longer description with key behavioral notes would be better.

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 or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the lifecycle of a watch channel, expected response, or how to manage it (stop channel). An agent would have significant gaps in using this tool correctly.

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 three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents parameter semantics adequately.

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 specifies the verb 'Watch' and the resource 'user's calendar list', and mentions push notifications. It clearly indicates the tool monitors a specific resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling watch tools like 'calendar_watch_events' or 'calendar_acl_watch'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent would need to know that this is for monitoring changes to the list of calendars (e.g., added/removed calendars) rather than events or ACL entries. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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