create_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resources, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is created and with what parameters.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover important aspects such as what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral constraints. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool, especially in a context with sibling tools that might have overlapping functionalities.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters in the input schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'name and color', which is already covered in the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the structured data.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new calendar'), specifying what fields are involved ('name and color'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_calendar' or 'delete_calendar' by indicating creation, but does not explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_event' or 'create_folder' beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as authentication or permissions needed, or compare it to similar tools like 'update_calendar' for modifications. Usage is implied by the action 'Create', but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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