create_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the permission gate, that overlapping bookings are refused, that needs_approval makes entries wait for a decision, that an unlisted admin cannot see a members-only calendar, and that delete is destructive with all events. It stops short of describing what is returned on success or whether visibility can later be widened.

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 verb, resource, and permission requirement, then walks through each enum in the order an agent needs them. The single dense paragraph with stacked parentheticals is somewhat run-on, but nearly every clause carries actionable information rather than filler.

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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the risky semantics — permission requirements, refusal of overlapping resource bookings, approval gating, and irreversibility of delete. The main remaining gap is the return value (e.g., a new calendar id) and any post-creation editing path.

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 only 63%, but the description compensates by explaining the meaning and consequences of kind, visibility (including the non-obvious case that an unlisted admin sees nothing), members ("e-mails from list_people"), needs_approval, and write_access. It adds little for name, color, and description, which are self-evident from the schema.

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 ("Create a shared calendar") and then defines all three kind values — shared = company events, resource = bookable thing, absence = time off — so an agent knows exactly what it is creating. This clearly separates it from siblings like create_event or delete_calendar.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ("admin or manager only") and routes cleanup to the alternative ("delete_calendar removes it with all its events") while recommending archive for retention. It does not mention list_calendars or how to check for existing calendars before creating, so the alternative guidance is not fully exhaustive.

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