create_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that timezone defaults to Asia/Taipei, that the calendar must be managed by the authenticated account, and that the return value includes the event id and public URL. This goes beyond the schema by adding operational context.

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?

Three sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose, a usage workflow, a default value note, and the return value. No filler; every sentence contributes valuable 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?

Given the tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main workflow, return value, and default timezone. It connects to sibling tools (list_calendars for alias_code, poster processing context) and leaves parameter details to the well-documented schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats some parameter info (alias_code, title, start, location, description) but adds little semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides. It does hint that description should be 1-2 sentences for poster events, which is a minor addition.

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 an event') with a specific resource ('TimeTree public calendar'), and adds the scope 'that the authenticated account manages'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events and update_event, and includes a concrete usage directive ('after reading an event poster').

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('after reading an event poster') and directs the user to obtain alias_code from list_calendars. It implies the creation context versus update_event, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives for existing events.

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