gcal_create_event

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say what permissions the connected account needs, whether duplicate events are created, how time zones or recurrence are handled, whether the operation returns an event ID, or what "(Beta)" implies for stability.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and carries no redundant wording. The "(Beta)" marker is the only piece of information that isn't strictly about what the tool does, and it is short enough to keep.

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?

This is a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, so the description had to compensate and did not. It never explains what data the caller must supply, what the result contains, or what side effects occur on the target calendar.

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?

The schema declares zero properties, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and no parameter meaning to add. However, an empty input schema for an event-creation tool is highly unusual, and the description gives no hint about how title, time, or calendar are supplied, leaving the agent unable to infer the calling contract.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ("Create an event") and names the target system (a Google Calendar on a connected Google account), which is enough to distinguish it from the Microsoft/Outlook event-creation siblings. It falls short of a 5 because it doesn't distinguish itself from the other Google Calendar siblings (gcal_update_event, gcal_delete_event) or from the generic create_calendar_event beyond the provider name.

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 this tool instead of create_calendar_event, m365_create_event, or outlook_calendar_create_event, and no prerequisites are stated. The phrase "connected Google account" hints that a connection is required, but it never says so explicitly or what to do when no account is connected.

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