calendar_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: the operation is a write, but it is gated behind confirm=true and defaults to a non-mutating preflight. That makes the safety profile explicit. It omits what happens to an existing .ics at the path, whether overwrites are silent, and what the preflight plan contains, which are relevant for a file-writing 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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the action and target format, then immediately gives the confirm gating rule. Nothing is redundant and the semantically decisive detail (default is preflight only) arrives before the write case.

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 two-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is produced, that it is a write, and how the dry-run/write gate works. It leaves out overwrite/conflict handling and path-validity expectations, which is a meaningful but modest gap given the tool's low complexity.

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 confirm and output_path, making 3 the baseline. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by framing the default behavior as session-time validation plus a preflight plan, and by tying confirm=true specifically to writing at the target path. That extra framing helps an agent reason about the flag rather than merely read its type.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: exporting the SIS class schedule to a standard iCalendar (.ics) file. It also labels the tool as a write operation, which separates it from read-only siblings such as sis_schedule, calendar_today, or calendar_week. It stops short of naming an alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated by explicit comparison.

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 clearly states two modes of use: by default the tool only validates class sessions and returns a preflight plan; with confirm=true it actually writes to the given path. That is concrete when-to-use guidance for the single decision that matters. It does not discuss what to do if the target file already exists or any prerequisites for choosing this over a read-only schedule tool.

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