create_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the default non-destructive write to '<file>.new', the in_place override, dry_run behavior, output_file constraints, and byte-for-byte preservation of unrelated content. It also flags that attendees are recorded but never sent and that no VTIMEZONE block is added.

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?

Dense but well organized, with a labeled SAFETY block and front-loaded core behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the parameter walkthrough is packed tightly enough that it reads as a reference dump rather than 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 15-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the write semantics, safety model, and format rules an agent needs. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and nothing critical is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains the non-obvious parameters: calendar naming rules, start format semantics, end inclusivity, tz storage behavior, rrule syntax, status and transp value sets, and the in_place/output_file/dry_run trio. Only summary, location, and description are left to obvious inference.

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 ('Add an event to a calendar file') plus a concrete side effect (UID and DTSTAMP generated). It also points to calendar_overview for the file name, which separates it from the read-only siblings like agenda and search_events.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: date-only start makes an all-day event, datetime start requires end or duration_minutes, and calendar names come from calendar_overview. It does not explicitly say to use update_event for existing events, but the create-vs-modify split is strongly implied by the sibling set.

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