calendar_out_of_office

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that this is outward-facing/destructive (hence confirm=true), that organizers receive 'message' and are notified on new_and_existing, that already-accepted meetings are only declined when explicitly requested, and that the block is not in the calendar provider and must be removed with calendar.delete_special. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second paragraph is dense with defaults and side effects rather than filler. It is on the long side, but each clause (default decline mode, notification behavior, removal path, confirm requirement) carries distinct information, so almost nothing is wasted.

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 8-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: side effects, defaults, prerequisites (confirm), and lifecycle (removal via calendar_delete_special). The only gap is what the call returns or how to verify the block was created, which is minor since there is no output schema to lean on.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description adds genuine meaning on top: it clarifies that decline='new_and_existing' notifies organizers (a non-obvious side effect) and explains the confirm requirement's rationale ('outward-facing or destructive'), extending beyond the schema's terse default notes.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create an Out of office block in the Calendar app') and immediately states the visible effect ('colleagues see it; meetings can be auto-declined'), which distinguishes it from calendar_create, calendar_focus_time, and calendar_reminder_add. It also clarifies that this is not a provider-level event but an app-level construct, which is information an agent could not infer from the name alone.

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 clear operational context: default decline behavior is 'only_new', new_and_existing must be requested explicitly, and removal is done via calendar.delete_special rather than calendar_delete. It never explicitly contrasts with calendar_focus_time or calendar_create (the nearest-looking siblings), so an agent still infers which tool to prefer, but the behavioral framing is otherwise strong.

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