create_event

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces idempotency but adds no new behavioral details, such as whether the tool validates conflicts, requires specific permissions like 'calendar.write', or what happens to required fields like 'timezone' if omitted. Given the annotation coverage, the description adds minimal extra value.

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 short sentence, which is concise. It front-loads the core action. However, it could be slightly longer to add usage context without losing conciseness.

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 is complex with 13 parameters and many calendar-management siblings, but has no output schema. The description covers creation and idempotency but omits return value expectations (e.g., whether it returns the created event object or just a success indicator), conflict behavior, and calendar visibility scope. An output schema would reduce the need for description completeness, but here its absence creates a gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not describe any parameters, but the schema itself is detailed with constraints (e.g., rrule max 2000 chars, attendees max 100 items, alarm object structure). With 13 parameters, the description could have clarified key fields like 'request_id' for idempotency or 'calendar_id' for context, but its omission is partially offset by schema richness.

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 states 'Create an event idempotently' which identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not clarify what 'idempotently' entails (e.g., whether it means the tool will not create duplicate events if called with the same request_id) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_event' or 'find_conflicts'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that 'update_event' should be used to modify existing events, or that 'find_conflicts' should be called before creating an event. The agent is left without context for tool selection among 8 siblings.

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