calendar_watch_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'push notifications' but does not disclose key behaviors: that it sets up a subscription requiring renewal, that a unique channelId must be used, or that the channel must eventually be stopped. It does not warn about potential costs or limits.

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, concise with no wasted words. However, it omits critical details, so it is under-specified rather than efficiently compact. Still, it earns a 4 for brevity.

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?

The tool involves a complex watch mechanism with push notifications, lifecycle management, and requires prior setup (HTTPS endpoint). Lacking an output schema and annotations, the description does not explain return values, renewal, or how to handle notifications, leaving significant gaps.

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%; all four parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter details. Baseline is 3, and no additional value is added.

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 'Watch for changes to events on a Google Calendar (push notifications)' clearly states the verb 'watch', the resource 'events on a Google Calendar', and the mechanism 'push notifications'. It distinguishes itself from other sibling watch tools (e.g., calendar_list_watch, gmail_watch) by specifying calendar 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calendar_stop_channel or other watch tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., setting up a notification endpoint) or context for use.

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