create_google_calendarCreate a new secondary calendar on the account — useful for keeping a client's or project's events separate from the personal one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| mailbox | Yes | Email address of the connected Gmail/Google Workspace mailbox to act on. Call list_authorized_mailboxes to see available options. | |
| timeZone | No | IANA timezone the calendar defaults to, e.g. "America/Denver" | |
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and does not disclose side effects, return values, authorization requirements, idempotency, or any other behavioral traits. The description does not explain what happens on success or failure, making it insufficient for an agent to predict behavior.
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 description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and purpose, with no filler or redundant content. It efficiently communicates the core functionality and a use case, making it highly scannable for an agent.
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 the tool has 4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It doesn't mention return values, how to specify timezone/description, or any post-creation behavior. An agent would need to rely on the schema and external knowledge to use it confidently.
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 50% — mailbox and timeZone are described, but name and description are not. The tool description adds no parameter information at all, so it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions. It doesn't explain what 'name' or 'description' mean, nor clarify the role of mailbox or timeZone beyond what the schema already provides.
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 action (create) on a specific resource (secondary calendar) on the account, and gives a concrete use case (keeping client/project events separate). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_google_calendar_event or create_outlook_calendar by naming the resource (Google calendar) and the 'secondary' qualifier.
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?
The description gives a clear context when this tool is useful (for client/project events separation) but does not mention alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it. It doesn't differentiate from create_google_calendar_event or other creation tools, leaving the agent to infer that this is for calendars, not events. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.