calendar_set_working_location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it reveals outward visibility (colleagues see it in Calendar/Gmail/Chat), that the change is scoped to the listed days while weekly settings persist, the undo path, and the confirm=true gate with its rationale. It stops short of covering permission/account scope or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by consequences, undo and the confirm requirement. The trailing confirm=true sentence partially duplicates the schema's own confirm description, which is the only real redundancy.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers effect, visibility, scope persistence, reversal and the confirm gate. Only peripheral context such as account/timezone handling is absent.

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's 'Home, Office or any place' and 'one day or a range of days' largely restate what the schema already documents for place, date and end_date, adding only modest framing value.

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 ('Set your working location') plus the accepted values (Home, Office, any place) and the temporal scope (one day or a range of days). It also disambiguates from the read path by naming calendar.working_location, so an agent can tell it apart from calendar_set_calendar and the read sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: read with calendar.working_location, undo by re-setting the previous place or by calendar.delete_special, and use this tool for per-day overrides that should not disturb weekly settings. Both alternatives and their selecting conditions are named.

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