calendar_v3_create_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 mentions 'Google Meet conference and guest permissions', which hints at behavioral aspects like conference creation and permission settings. However, it lacks details on critical behaviors: whether this requires authentication, what happens on failure, if it's idempotent, or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new calendar event') and adds qualifying details ('with Google Meet conference and guest permissions'). There's no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (12 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits like error handling, authentication needs, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively. The description alone is inadequate for safe and correct 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 12 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that parameters relate to 'Google Meet conference and guest permissions', but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific action ('Create a new calendar event') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'with Google Meet conference and guest permissions'. It uses a precise verb ('Create') and identifies the resource ('calendar event'), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated from other tools like calendar_v3_update_event or calendar_v3_delete_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 implies usage context by mentioning 'Google Meet conference and guest permissions', suggesting this tool is for creating events with those features. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like calendar_v3_quick_add (for simpler events) or calendar_v3_update_event (for modifications). The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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