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

Annotations cover the safety profile (openWorldHint, non-destructive), but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the draft-by-default save behavior, the visibility consequence of publishing, the fact that members are not notified until announce_event, a confirmation requirement before each call, and the API key requirement. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures 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?

The purpose and default behavior are front-loaded and every sentence carries information. However, the confirmation guidance is split and slightly redundant across two sentences, and the opening fragment ("New event as a draft, or published without an announcement") is telegraphic rather than clean prose.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers creation modes, notification behavior, confirmation policy, and auth requirements. It stops short of indicating what the created event returns (e.g., an identifier), but that gap is minor given no output schema is defined.

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. The description expands on the publish parameter's consequence (draft vs visible to everyone), which adds some meaning, but it says nothing about the other parameters (venue, attendee_limit, duration, etc.). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Creates an event in your group") and clarifies the two creation modes (draft vs published). It also names the sibling announce_event as the mechanism for member notification, so the agent can distinguish it from related tools 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 states the default behavior (saved as draft unless publish is true) and the condition that selects the alternative path (members are told only when you call announce_event). This is a clear when/when-not with a named alternative, plus a confirmation requirement.

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