create_personal_calendar_event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate the mutating nature. The description adds the requirement of a recent preview token, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't explain failure modes, token validity, or side effects beyond the creation, but given annotations cover safety, this is adequate.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary details while conveying the essential intent, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 has 6 parameters, zero schema coverage, no output schema, and destructive implications, the description is incomplete. It doesn't instruct the agent on the full workflow (e.g., calling the preview first), nor does it explain what the confirmation token is, how to obtain it, or what happens on success/failure. The description alone leaves an agent underprepared.

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 for explaining parameters. It only hints at 'confirmation_token' through 'confirmed via preview' but gives no guidance on 'name', 'timestart', 'repeats', 'duration', or 'description'. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool with no schema documentation.

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 a specific action ('create') on a specific resource ('personal calendar event') and adds the key qualifier 'confirmed via a recent preview,' which distinguishes it from the preview sibling. It is clear and not a tautology, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tool.

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 phrase 'confirmed through a recent preview' clearly implies that the tool should be used after calling preview_create_personal_calendar_event to obtain a confirmation token. This provides a usage context, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implicit preview prerequisite.

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