create_calendar_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key side effect that adding attendees automatically sends meeting invitations, which is valuable. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as permissions, default calendar selection, or return/output behavior, leaving room for improvement.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately captures the most important caveat. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 (16 parameters, nested recurrence and attendee objects, no output schema), the description is minimal. It covers the primary use case and key side effect, but does not mention the default calendar, return values, or usage nuances. The rich schema compensates somewhat, but a bit more contextual guidance would improve completeness.

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 high (81%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the attendee invitation side effect, which is already partially present in the attendees parameter description. It does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('calendar event in Microsoft Outlook'), and the word 'new' distinguishes it from calendar update/cancel/delete/get siblings. It also flags the important side-effect of sending meeting invitations when attendees are added, adding clarity without ambiguity.

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 makes clear this tool is for creating new events, which is a clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'use update_calendar_event for existing events', so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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