create_calendar_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing events, error handling for invalid calendar names, or synchronization behavior. Only return type (success/error) is mentioned.

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?

Description is concise, uses clear bullet points for args and returns, and front-loads the main action. No superfluous text, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping optional params).

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?

For a simple creation tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers basic usage but lacks behavioral details. Given no annotations, it is adequate but leaves gaps about edge cases (e.g., invalid calendar name, event conflicts).

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description adds substantial value by explaining the format for start_datetime (with example), duration in minutes, and optional calendar_name. This helps the agent correctly format 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?

Description clearly states it creates a calendar event in the macOS Calendar app. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'create_recurring_event' tool. Distinguishing between simple and recurring events would improve clarity.

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 example, there is no mention of conditions for using 'create_recurring_event' or handling of default calendars. The description only notes that calendar_name is optional.

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