create_calendar_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It includes '[mutation]' to indicate state change, but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, error handling, or what happens on success. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Single sentence with examples and mutation marker. Front-loaded with purpose and examples. Could be broken into separate points for clarity, but overall efficient and no wasted words.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and lack of annotations, the description is sparse. It does not explain the return value, creation behavior on duplicate names, or any additional context about calendar services vs events. The agent may be left wondering about the service lifecycle.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples but no further meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain parameter relationships or constraints (e.g., buffer vs duration logic).

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 it creates a calendar service/appointment type, with examples (e.g., consulta 30min). The verb 'Crear' and resource 'servicio de calendario' distinguish it from related tools like create_calendar_event or update_calendar_service, though the concept of 'service' could be further clarified.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_calendar_event or update_calendar_service. Missing prerequisites (e.g., calendar must exist) or context about when creating a service is appropriate. The sibling list includes many calendar-related tools but the description offers no differentiation.

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