create-specific-calendar-event

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. However, it adds no additional behavioral context, such as potential side effects (e.g., sending invitations, modifying calendars) or prerequisites beyond the email tip. The description adds no value beyond what annotations already convey.

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 at two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second is a practical tip. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. However, the tip, while important, is somewhat tangential to the main purpose, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 complexity of this tool (large nested body, many optional fields, and a destructive action), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the calendarId parameter, required fields, or any response/error information. The schema covers parameter details, but the description offers no high-level usage context, such as what to set for a simple event or common pitfalls.

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 80%, which is high, so the baseline is 3. The description provides no extra parameter information; it relies entirely on the schema. Since the schema already documents body and calendarId well, the description doesn't need to compensate, but it also doesn't enhance understanding.

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 action ('create a new event in a calendar') and the resource (a user's calendar or default calendar of a Microsoft 365 group). It is specific and understandable, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like create-calendar-event, which limits it to a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The tip about using list-users to find recipient email addresses is a prerequisite, but it does not clarify the tool's specific context (e.g., when you have a calendarId vs. the user's default calendar). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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