Create Personal Event

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them — that the event is private to the caller and that the call returns the new event with its ID. It does not cover notification behavior or duplicate-call effects, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and privacy scope front-loaded before the sibling pointer and return-value note.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent the response includes the new event with its ID, and all five parameters are documented in the schema. Only minor gaps remain (timezone handling, whether start/end must be ordered), which the schema partially implies.

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%, with examples for title, end_at, and location_name, so the description need not explain parameters. The description adds no field-level semantics of its own (e.g., timezone expectations), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an event on your own Canvas calendar'), adds a clarifying visibility scope ('only you see it'), and names the sibling used for modification. It is immediately distinguishable from update_calendar_event, get_calendar_event, and 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?

Explicitly routes later edits to update_calendar_event, which gives the agent a clear alternative for a related operation. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g., that only personal, not course-level, events can be created here), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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