calendar_events_insert

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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, permission levels needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limiting considerations. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise at just four words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every element ('Create', 'new', 'calendar event') earns its place by contributing to understanding the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (event ID, success confirmation, error details), doesn't mention prerequisites or dependencies, and provides no context about the broader calendar system. The combination of mutation functionality with minimal description creates significant gaps for an agent trying to use this tool effectively.

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 description provides no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't need to duplicate parameter documentation, though it adds no additional semantic context.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a new calendar event'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like calendar_events_update or calendar_events_get, which would require more specificity about what distinguishes this particular creation operation.

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. There are multiple sibling calendar tools (delete, get, list, update) and other creation tools (docs_create, drive_files_create), but the description offers no context about when calendar event creation is appropriate versus other operations or tools.

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