Create Event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful non-annotation fact — the event name is immutable after creation — but says nothing about auth requirements, failure modes (e.g. name collisions), or what the call returns.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste; purpose is front-loaded and the immutability caveat follows. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the schema carries most parameter detail and annotations cover safety. However, the description omits usage context, the meaning of the conversion setup, and any sense of what happens on success, leaving it adequate but thin.

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%, with the nested 'fields', 'conversion', and 'name' properties well documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the immutability note on name, and the untouched 'description' parameter is undocumented, so it does not compensate for the remaining coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Define an event type that apps can send and automations can react to.' This is clearly distinguishable from the read/update siblings (list-events, get-event, update-event) by implying creation, though it never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts with them.

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 such as create-tag or create-contact, and no stated prerequisites. The only constraint given ('The name cannot be changed later') is a behavioral caveat rather than usage direction, so an agent gets no routing help.

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