create_event

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses important side effects and behaviors: notify=True emails attendees an invitation, add_conference=True attaches a native video link, naive datetimes are interpreted as UTC, and the return shape is {event: {...}}. This gives the agent a clear understanding of what to expect, including potential external effects.

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 compact paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then packs essential parameter guidance, a practical example, side-effect warnings, and the return value into a coherent structure. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and contains no wasted words.

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 has 11 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description covers prerequisites (ID sourcing), input format (ISO-8601), constraints (writable, sync-rule exclusion), side effects (notify, conference), and return. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional external documentation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well for the most critical parameters: connection_id (source), calendar_id (writable calendar's provider_calendar_id), start_iso/end_iso (ISO-8601 format with UTC handling), attendees (list of emails), notify (default true), and add_conference (native video link). However, it leaves some parameters like all_day, location, and description undefined, which, while partially inferable, could use more clarity.

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 opens with the direct, specific statement 'Create a calendar event,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_event and reschedule_event by focusing solely on creation, and it reinforces the purpose by explaining how to obtain the required IDs from list_connections and list_calendars.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it requires a writable calendar, explicitly states that the target 'must NOT be the target of a sync rule,' and tells the user where to get connection_id and calendar_id. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for related operations (e.g., reschedule_event for modifying an existing event), so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives breakdown.

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