create_calendar_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses auth requirements (scope and permission) and the UAT-first context, which is valuable. It does not detail response format or side effects like notifications, but the schema includes a need_notification parameter for that. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and requirements following. The time field note, while redundant with the schema, highlights a key complexity and is not verbose. No wasted sentences, but the 'Official API + UAT, v1.3.7' prefix is minor noise that does not detract.

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?

The tool has 12 parameters and nested objects, but the schema covers all parameter details. The description adds permission and time field context. However, with no output schema, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., created event ID), which is relevant for agents to use the result. Overall, adequate but not fully complete.

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 all parameters are fully described in the JSON schema. The description repeats the time field format found in the schema but does not add new meaning beyond what's already documented. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new calendar event' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_calendar_event and delete_calendar_event. The purpose is unambiguous and front-loaded.

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 important prerequisites including required scope ('calendar:calendar.event:create') and permission level ('writer or owner permission'), which are essential for using the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative calendar tools or give when-not-to-use conditions, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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