create_calendar_event

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses non-obvious behavior: automatic conflict checking, refusal with conflict:true plus conflicting events, and the force bypass. It could have also covered result-on-success and error behavior, but the most important side effects are transparent.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose first, then approval requirement, then the conflict-check and force override. Every sentence carries useful operational information.

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?

The description captures the critical conflict-resolution logic, but for a tool with no output schema and nine parameters it is incomplete: it doesn't state the success response shape, the required time format, or the meaning of fields like attendees and isPrivate. It covers enough for basic correct invocation but not full situational confidence.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate. It adds meaning to force and to the startTime/endTime range via the conflict-check behavior, but it leaves subject, startTime, endTime, attendees, body, and location semantics entirely to the schema, which lacks descriptions for most of them.

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 opens with 'Create a new calendar event,' which names a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as update_calendar_event and cancel_calendar_event.

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?

It establishes clear context: use this tool to create events, and it includes a strong conditional guideline for the force parameter, telling the agent to pass true only after explicit user approval of double-booking. It does not explicitly contrast with update/cancel, but the resource name and creation verb make the usage obvious.

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