set_schedule_slot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals two key behaviors: conflicts are returned unless 'overwrite' is true, and for private slots only 'displayName' is allowed (no CRM fields). This gives meaningful insight into side effects and validation. However, it omits details on success/failure responses, idempotency, or what 'dirty workspace' implies operationally, leaving some gaps.

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 three terse sentences with no filler. Every word adds value: it names the resource, defines the core behavior (conflicts vs overwrite), and states a critical constraint. It is appropriately brief for the information it conveys.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 2 enums, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain the interplay between 'date'/'dayOfWeek' and 'startTime'/'endTime', the meaning of 'dirty workspace', or what constitutes a valid slot. Critical information for successful use is missing, making this under-specified for an agent to correctly invoke all parameters.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and 10 parameters, the description adds some semantics by explaining 'overwrite' (affects conflict behavior) and 'displayName' (only private name field). However, it leaves the other eight parameters (date, startTime, endTime, dayOfWeek, instructor, etc.) unexplained, not even their format or interaction. The description fails to compensate for the lack of documentation in the schema, although the two parameters it does explain are given useful context.

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 'Set one group/private schedule slot in the dirty workspace' clearly states the action (set) and the resource (group/private schedule slot), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like clear_schedule_slot or get_schedule by specifying the single-slot, group/private nature. It identifies the workspace context ('dirty workspace') and the key behavior of conflict handling, making the purpose immediately understandable.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., generate_weekly_schedule, clear_schedule_slot). It doesn't mention prerequities, when not to use it, or which sibling tools handle related scenarios. The conflict/overwrite note hints at usage behavior but doesn't compare to other schedule-modifying tools in the sibling list.

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