create_calendar_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses scope requirements, permission level, identity constraint, and time field formats. However, it omits other behavioral traits like whether notifications are sent (the need_notification parameter suggests it but doesn't state explicitly), idempotency, error scenarios, or rate limits. Moderate transparency.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisites, then time details. It could be slightly more terse (e.g., 'Official API + UAT' might be redundant), but overall it's well-structured and each section adds 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?

Despite having 12 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return value (e.g., the created event's ID or details) or cover error handling. For a creation tool, this is a significant gap. The description misses completeness by not addressing what the agent should expect after invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two time object formats (timestamp vs. date) and the scope/permission context. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already cover most but not all nuances.

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 new calendar event.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('calendar event'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_calendar_event or respond_calendar_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 provides prerequisites (scope, permissions, UAT-first identity) and time field formatting, but it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, such as when to use respond_calendar_event for responding to events. The prerequisites are helpful but lack comparative usage context.

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