create_event

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

The description states it creates events and supports recurring events, but with no annotations provided, it does not disclose potential side effects such as sending invitations, required permissions, or how the created event is returned. The 'creates' verb indicates mutation, but richer behavioral context is absent.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then a key extension (recurring events). No fluff or redundancy; every word contributes value.

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?

While the schema is rich and covers parameters, the description is thin given the tool's complexity (12 params, nested objects, no output schema). It does not mention return values, error behavior, or usage specifics like all-day vs timed events, leaving the agent without guidance except what the schema already provides.

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?

All 12 parameters are fully documented in the schema, including descriptions for each, so the schema covers parameter semantics. The description adds nothing beyond mentioning recurring events, which relates to the recurrence parameter but does not add new meaning.

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') and resource ('calendar event'), and also highlights the capability to create recurring events. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_event and delete_event.

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 implies usage for creating new calendar events, including recurring ones, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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