Select a booking calendar

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: required scopes (bookings:write, luca:queue_ops), the 400/409 failure modes, and the idempotency-key requirement with fallback generation. Annotations already cover safety/mutability, so this is genuine additive value rather than repetition.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose before the operational metadata. The scope/idempotency/workspace lines are terse and each carries distinct information, though the block form is slightly dense.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described. The description covers purpose, preconditions, error codes, scopes, and idempotency, leaving little an agent needs missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 75% with descriptions on workspaceId, workspaceSlug, and idempotencyKey. The description reinforces the workspace override semantics and explains idempotencyKey's retry purpose, adding meaning beyond the nested body fields.

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: adding or updating a calendar selection with two distinct modes (conflict checks or write destination). It clearly identifies the resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling luca_bookings_calendars_remove that also operates on this resource.

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?

Explains the two use modes (conflict checks vs. destination) and gives concrete preconditions: the destination must be writable, a read-only calendar returns 400, a Google connection needing attention returns 409. No explicit when-not or named alternative tool, but the context is clear.

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