create_calendar_event

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: Garmin forces every event PRIVATE and unshareable, sets isTrainingEvent whenever isPrimaryEvent is, returns a 500 on unknown eventType, and rewrites the supplied timezone — none of which the annotations convey.

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 dense and technical but front-loads the operation before the field shape and behavioral caveats, and each clause carries distinct information. It is information-rich rather than padded, though the single run-on block and apparent truncation reduce polish.

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 create tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers required fields, formats, side effects, and validation/error behavior well. The only shortfall is the visibly truncated trailing clause about timezone rewriting, leaving that behavior only partially explained.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by inlining the full field shape with optionality markers (`startTime?`), format hints ("HH:MM"), and the distance unit enum. It also states only name/date are required, adding meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 opens with 'POSTs `/calendar-service/event`', giving a specific verb (create) and resource (calendar event), and the inline `CalendarEventInput` type clarifies scope precisely. It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from siblings such as update_calendar_event or list_calendar_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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or selection criteria relative to alternatives like update_calendar_event or create_manual_activity. The description states required fields and side effects but leaves the agent to infer that this is for creating (not modifying) a calendar event.

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