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

The annotation destructiveHint=true is not contradicted by 'Create', and the description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: 'The timezone of start_date becomes the event's timezone' and the return shape '{ EventId }'. It stops short of disclosing side effects such as attendee notifications or permission requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a short return-value clause, with the core action and the most surprising behavior (timezone propagation) front-loaded. No filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the event type, attendee option, timezone semantics, and return value. It omits attendee-side effects and calendar selection detail, but the remaining gaps are modest given the schema fills much of the rest.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters, but the description supplies a non-obvious semantic rule not in the schema: the timezone of start_date becomes the event's timezone. That genuinely adds meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a timed (or all-day) event on your calendar') and clarifies scope with the optional attendees nuance. An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like lacrm_list_events without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the creation verb and the timed/all-day distinction, and attendees are noted as optional. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives (e.g., lacrm_list_events for reading) are provided.

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