zerodb_calendar_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes that the tool uses a stored Google OAuth connection, but does not mention side effects (e.g., sending invitations, notifications), whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, resource, and auth method. It contains no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 tool with six parameters and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and auth context, while the schema covers all parameter details. However, it omits return behavior and potential side effects, leaving some uncertainty about the outcome of the call.

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 100%, with each parameter already having a descriptive comment (e.g., start/end in ISO 8601, attendees list, calendar_id default). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 Google Calendar event, with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Google Calendar event'). It is distinct from sibling tools like gmail_reply or github_create_issue, which target different services.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the direct action and resource make its intended usage inferable. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so the agent must infer context from the sibling list and tool name.

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