Create event

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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the annotations: admin-only authorization, immediate member visibility ("Members see it at once"), and the reminder side effect ("Skool reminds members before it starts"). It does not spell out that repeated calls create duplicate events, which matters given idempotentHint=false, but the surrounding context is well covered.

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?

"Admins only" appears twice in a four-sentence description, and the duplicated clause about member visibility versus the UI reference could be merged. The core content is front-loaded and there is no padding beyond that repetition.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: permission gate, resulting visibility, notification side effect, and the field set. Remaining gaps (duplicate-on-retry behavior, what the response contains) are minor against a fully documented schema.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description largely re-lists the same fields. The one added gloss is mapping "who sees it" to the access options and clarifying that location can be a link, address, or URL — marginal gain over the schema.

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?

"Add an event to a group's calendar" is a specific verb+resource and the following sentence enumerates what gets created (title, start, length, time zone, location, visibility), so an agent knows exactly what this produces. It never names update_event, delete_event, or list_events, so sibling routing is left to the verb alone.

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 anchors usage in a familiar UI action ("as Add event does") and states an admin-only prerequisite, which is real context. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternative — e.g. that editing an existing event requires update_event rather than a second create.

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