create_event

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

Despite annotations covering readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, the description adds substantial context beyond them: the two-phase approval flow, the preview mechanism, request expiry (15 min), deduplication of identical pending requests, rate limiting (>20/hour per tool), audit logging, and the fact that the second call executes the originally approved payload. This is exceptionally rich behavioral disclosure that an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 long but front-loads the core purpose and the critical two-phase workflow immediately. Every sentence provides actionable information (approval, expiry, dedup, rate limit, audit, return value, prerequisite). It is dense but not padded — a minor deduction only because the schema already repeats some request_id details.

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?

This is a high-complexity mutation tool with no output schema, so the description must carry the full burden. It covers the approval workflow, execution semantics, return value ({id, ...}), prerequisite (connected calendar), rate limits, expiry, audit logging, and even points to find_free_slots. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly, including request_id. The description reinforces the two-phase behavior around request_id but does not add syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the parameter-level heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Create a calendar event on the connected calendar') and is clearly distinguished from siblings like find_free_slots (referenced) or delete_event (named sibling implies write vs delete distinction). An agent can immediately tell this is the creation tool, not a listing or free-slot query.

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?

Explicitly says to use find_free_slots first, and explains the required two-phase human-approval workflow in detail. It also gives a concrete reason for the approval requirement (events generate invitations), which helps the agent understand when and why this tool behaves differently from a simple write. This is unusually thorough routing guidance.

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