create_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait beyond the schema: without confirm=true the call is preview-only and does not commit. That said, it says nothing about required permissions, whether a confirmed create is reversible, or what the response contains, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding; the core action and its parameters come first and the important confirm/preview caveat is appended compactly. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all parameters and the critical dry-run gate, which is the information an agent most needs to avoid an accidental write. Missing only secondary detail such as permission requirements and error behavior.

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, and it does: date format is given as AAAA-MM-JJ, duration is clarified as days, and confirm's effect (preview vs commit) is explained. Only 'title' is left without added semantic detail, which is self-evident.

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 ('Crée un événement') plus the accepted date format and that duration is in days, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with update_event or delete_event, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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 confirm=false preview behavior is a genuine usage condition and is stated explicitly, which implies a two-step preview-then-commit workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings (update_event, delete_event, get_next_events) and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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