create_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It gives useful time-format semantics but omits mutation-relevant behavior: whether invitations are dispatched to attendees, permissions required, side effects, or reversibility. The format detail is helpful but leaves key behavioral traits undocumented.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two format constraints that matter most. Zero filler; every clause carries information.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should disclose invitation/side-effect behavior, required scopes, and defaults for send_updates/calendar_id, none of which are covered.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate, but it only restates the start/end formats already in the schema and clarifies that attendees are email strings. Six parameters (summary, location, timezone, calendar_id, description, send_updates) get no semantic elaboration in either place.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new event'), which clearly separates it from the list/get/update/delete siblings. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts against those siblings, so it stops short of the 5-tier differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use create_event versus update_event, or on prerequisites such as needing write access to a calendar. The description only describes what the tool does, never when or when-not to invoke it.

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