outlook_create_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional Teams meeting integration' but does not detail side effects like sending invites, permissions required, or response format. Key behavioral traits for a write operation are missing.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy. Efficiently communicates the primary function.

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 complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, success behavior, or provide context for handling recurrence. The tool requires more comprehensive guidance to be fully useful.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only noting optional Teams meetings. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides semantic meaning.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create a new calendar event in Outlook' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions optional Teams meeting integration, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like outlook_create_recurring_event, which is a closely related tool for recurring events.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, when to use this vs outlook_create_recurring_event or outlook_update_event is not addressed. The description simply states the action without context or exclusions.

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