Export events to a .ics file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that a new .ics file is written, that UTC times are used, and that the file is intended for sending or importing elsewhere. It does not describe error cases or what happens if both ids and from/to are supplied, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two focused sentences, no filler. The purpose and key usage distinction are front-loaded, and the timezone detail is placed where it matters. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description is adequate for a straightforward export tool, but gaps remain: it does not clarify what happens when both ids and from/to are omitted or supplied together, and it only references events_list as the source for ids while the schema also allows events_search and next_event. With no output schema, a bit more detail about expected results would strengthen completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter guidance by presenting ids and from/to as mutually exclusive alternatives, and explains why UTC matters for the output. This goes beyond simply restating 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'write chosen events to a new .ics file'. It clearly separates this from siblings like export_csv or ics_create by focusing on exporting existing events into an .ics file.

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 clearly tells the agent how to scope the operation: pass either ids or a from/to window. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid, but the context of sending or importing the .ics elsewhere is clear enough for correct use.

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