create-calendar-event

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that this modifies data. It adds a useful behavioral tip about not guessing email addresses, which helps avoid a common mistake. However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors like sending invitations, confirmation requirements, or side effects beyond creation. Given annotations carry the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, with the main purpose in the first sentence and a clear, actionable tip in the second. It front-loads the intended action and capabilities without excessive length. The use of 'CRITICAL' and a tip icon adds emphasis but is not overly verbose. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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?

This is a complex tool with a large nested schema, yet the description is minimal. It doesn't indicate required fields, return values, or potential errors. However, the schema provides extensive parameter descriptions, and the annotations cover destructive behavior. The tip about recipients is helpful but not comprehensive. Given the tool's complexity, the description could do more to guide the agent, but it isn't misleading and leverages the schema sufficiently.

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 75%, so most parameters are already described in the schema. The description lists fields like subject, start/end times, time zone, location, body, and attendees, but doesn't add deeper meaning beyond that. It doesn't clarify required parameters (though body is required per schema), nor does it explain nested structures. This provides little added value over the schema itself, consistent with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool creates a calendar event with specific fields (subject, times, location, etc.) and capabilities (online meetings, recurrence). It is specific about the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling 'create-specific-calendar-event', which creates an event in a specific calendar, so it doesn't fully separate from that sibling.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-specific-calendar-event'. The only guideline is the tip about using 'list-users' to find email addresses, which is a prerequisite but not a when-to-use instruction. There is no mention of which calendar this targets (default vs. specific) or exclusions.

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