Create Share

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: a confirm=true guardrail gating the write, a mandatory shares:write scope, and confirmation that this mutates Calendly state. It does not describe consequences for existing data, but the annotation coverage reduces that burden.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded, with no padding. The only waste is the opening "Create Share," which duplicates the title rather than advancing the description.

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 15-parameter destructive mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description is thin. It says nothing about the mutually exclusive body-input modes (payload vs payload_file vs flat flags), what a share consists of, or the availability/location configuration required for a usable call — content an agent would need that goes beyond the raw schema.

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 67%, above the baseline threshold, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description's only parameter reference (confirm=true) duplicates the schema's own description of confirm, adding no new semantics about the 15-param payload/flat-flag surface.

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?

"Create Share" simply restates the tool name and title, and "Changes Calendly state" is a generic mutation phrase. The description never explains what a share is or what resource it produces, so an agent learns nothing about the operation beyond its verb.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no alternatives named. The mention of a required scope (shares:write) hints at prerequisites but does not help the agent decide when this tool is the right choice.

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