Create Event

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

The description discloses the datetime conversion behavior (offsets/trailing Z to local naive) before passing to AppleScript. It also notes that non-writable calendars are rejected. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits like mutability, authorization, or rate limits. Since annotations lack destructiveHint/readOnlyHint, the description carries the burden but provides only partial transparency.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a technical nuance. There is no redundant information, but a more structured format could improve clarity.

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 9 parameters, 3 required, and is a mutation tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter documentation, return value description (output schema exists but not mentioned), and prerequisites. An agent needs more context to use this tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameter meanings. It only indirectly addresses datetime conversion for start/end, but does not describe title, notes, url, invitees, location, calendar_uid, or all_day. This is inadequate for an agent to correctly populate these parameters.

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 clearly states 'Create a calendar event', which is a specific verb+resource. It also mentions rejecting non-writable calendars, adding nuance. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool calendar_create_all_day_event for all-day events, but the name itself implies regular 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?

The description implies usage when creating a calendar event and notes that non-writable calendars are rejected, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calendar_create_all_day_event. There are no when-not guidelines.

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