skylight_create_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Create a calendar event.' It does not explain side effects, whether events are immediately visible on the frame, permissions needed, or behavior around recurrence/category assignment. This is a minimal mutating-action statement with no additional behavioral depth.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy, and the key scoping detail 'on a Skylight frame' is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though the short length reflects a larger gap in substance that is penalized elsewhere.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too incomplete. It does not explain how to specify the frame, what the event lifecycle is, or how required parameters beyond summary should be handled. The agent cannot correctly and confidently use the tool across realistic scenarios based on this description alone.

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 only 45%, and the description does not compensate for the remaining undocumented parameters. It hints at frame targeting via 'on a Skylight frame,' but does not explain all_day, timezone, location, invited_emails, or frameId semantics. The schema itself documents only a few fields, so the agent is left without sufficient meaning for most parameters.

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 calendar event on a Skylight frame.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like skylight_create_source_calendar, skylight_update_event, and skylight_delete_event. The purpose is unambiguous.

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, and no exclusions or prerequisites. It does not mention that it should be used for creating new events as opposed to updating or deleting, aside from the implicit verb 'Create.' This leaves the agent without explicit routing context among the many calendar-related siblings.

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