Quick Add Event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that parsing is NLP-based. It says nothing about required permissions, which calendar is written to by default, whether ambiguous text fails or silently guesses, or that this is a persistent mutation. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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?

One sentence of purpose followed by two concrete examples, front-loaded and free of filler. The examples earn their place by showing the accepted phrasing style, though they are the bulk of a very short description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and a sibling create_event, the description omits the permission/behavior context and the disambiguation an agent needs, so it is only minimally 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 both parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The examples do convey what kind of text the required parameter expects (recurrence and relative time phrasing), which is slight added value, but calendar_id receives no explanation beyond the schema.

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) and pins down the distinctive input modality: a natural language string rather than structured fields. It is clearly separable from get_event/delete_event, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling create_event, which an agent must choose between.

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 two examples imply the intended usage context (loose, human-phrased scheduling text like "Lunch with Bob tomorrow at noon"), which is useful implied guidance. However there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over create_event, nor any exclusion or precondition, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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