ingest_calendar_event

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the plan-based restriction (manual vs Pro) and the allowed kind values. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or behavior on failure, which would be useful for an ingest operation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. Two sentences provide the key purpose and the main constraint without any 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?

With 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks critical details such as whether end_iso must be after start_iso, whether events are deduplicated, what the response looks like, and any prerequisites. The provided information covers only kind and source, leaving the rest to inference.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates only partially. It explains the 'kind' parameter's allowed values and hints at the 'source' parameter via the manual vs connector distinction. Other parameters like 'start_iso', 'end_iso', 'title', and 'external' receive no additional meaning beyond their names.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Ingest a calendar event.' It also specifies the allowed kinds, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'ingest_revenue_event' by the resource type (calendar vs revenue).

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 provides clear context about when manual entry is free and connector-sourced ingest requires Pro, which is a usage constraint. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the reference to 'As with revenue' draws a parallel with the revenue ingest tool, giving contextual guidance.

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