create_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action ('create a new calendar event'). It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it sends invitations, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, authentication requirements, or side effects like sending invitations. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but behavioral context is critically lacking.

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 90%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description mentions 'attendees and location' which aligns with two parameters, but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('calendar event') with additional context about attendees and location. It distinguishes from siblings like create_calendar or create_contact by specifying the event type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like create_draft_email.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for calendar events, it doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to related tools like update_event or delete_event in the sibling list.

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