create_calendar

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning this is a mutating non-destructive operation. The description adds context about calendar ownership and sharing, but does not disclose specific behaviors like duplicate name handling or validation errors. It is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 sentences long, each earning its place: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance, and the third adds important context about multiple calendars and org-level use. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description does not mention return values, which is a minor gap. However, it covers prerequisites, usage scenarios, and parameter context, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the purpose of agent_id (omit for org-level) and the concept of multiple calendars. This helps the agent understand the parameter roles beyond their syntax.

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 'Create a calendar to hold events and track availability.' It identifies the specific resource (calendar) and action (create), and distinguishes from sibling tools like update_calendar or delete_calendar by explaining that calendars are prerequisites for events.

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 guidance: 'Calendars are required before creating events — call this first when setting up a new agent.' It also notes that agents can have multiple calendars and org-level calendars can be shared resources. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear for correct invocation.

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