import_calendar

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description usefully adds that the operation requires FLIGHTY_ALLOW_WRITES=true and has not been live-validated. It does not contradict the annotations, though it stops short of describing exactly what gets destroyed or how the mutation affects existing calendar data.

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 short and mostly front-loaded, but "Not live-validated" and "Mutation behavior has not been live-tested" duplicate the same warning. The endpoint and path-parameter details are useful but not maximally efficient.

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?

For a destructive import tool with four undocumented parameters and a required write flag, the description is too thin. The output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description still omits what is imported and how query/confirm_destructive affect behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full burden for four parameters. It only addresses payload via a schema reference and says there are no path parameters, leaving query and confirm_destructive unexplained.

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 mostly restates the tool name and HTTP endpoint ("import_calendar: POST /v1/sync/calendar") without explaining what importing a calendar actually does. It does not distinguish this from siblings like request_bulk_import or sync_account, and the only added meaning is that the operation is mutating.

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?

It gives a prerequisite (FLIGHTY_ALLOW_WRITES=true) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as request_bulk_import or sync_account. There are no exclusions or contextual cues for selecting import_calendar.

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