Create an Out of Office block

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

Beyond the annotations (not read-only, not idempotent), the description discloses concrete side effects: auto-decline applies to 'all overlapping meetings, or only new invitations', send_updates defaults to no notifications, and ambiguous failures are not retried — advising list_events verification. This gives an agent a realistic model of the call's effects and failure semantics.

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?

Five tightly written sentences, each carrying distinct operational value: behavior, compatibility constraint, scheduling format, management pattern, and retry policy. No filler or repetition of schema text.

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 create operation with no output schema, it covers all non-obvious aspects: auto-decline modes, decline message, calendar restriction, always-timed constraint, post-creation management via sibling tools, and handling of ambiguous failures. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds crucial clarification that calendar_id effectively only supports the primary calendar in practice, contradicting the schema's hint that any calendar_id from list_calendars works, and reinforces that start/end_date_time must be timed. This extra meaning pushes it above baseline.

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 and resource: 'Creates an Out of Office event' with a distinguishing behavior, auto-declining meeting invitations. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like create_event and create_focus_time even before reading parameters.

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?

It gives clear usage context: only for primary Google Workspace calendars, always timed, and how to manage the block afterward via update_event, delete_event, and list_events. It does not explicitly contrast with create_event for non-OOO events, but the limitation and management guidance effectively scope when this tool is appropriate.

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