create_recurring_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool creates a recurring event and returns structured output, but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, default calendar behavior, or error handling. The parameter list and return type are covered, but behavioral traits beyond creation are omitted.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the purpose. It is clear but a bit verbose; each line contributes meaning. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'Optional' for count is clear from schema). Overall efficient.

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's complexity (10 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers required and optional parameters, return type, and format hints. It lacks information about timezone handling or default calendar, but is sufficient for an AI agent to understand input expectations.

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 0%, so the description compensates well by listing all parameters with brief explanations, formats (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM for dates), and allowed values (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly for frequency). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and range constraints, though defaults are not explicitly stated.

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 the tool creates a recurring Calendar event. It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('recurring Calendar event'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_calendar_event (non-recurring) and update_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?

The description implies use for recurring events but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives like create_calendar_event or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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