create_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavioral rules: a bare date on `start` creates an all-day event, and omitted `end` yields a 1-hour timed event or 1-day all-day event. It omits other side effects such as whether invitations are sent or whether recurrence changes propagate, so it falls short of full disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the two highest-value edge-case rules. No filler.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two behaviors most likely to cause a wrong call (all-day inference and implicit duration). The remaining parameters are well documented in the schema, so the gap is small but present — side effects like invitation emails and recurrence interaction are not addressed.

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 coverage is 70%, and the description adds meaning the schema does not: the type of `start` changes the event kind, and the default duration depends on that kind. It says nothing about `busy`, `rrule`, `attendees`, or `alarm_minutes` beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opening 'Create an event' states a specific verb and resource, and the following sentences clarify the scope of the operation via date-type semantics. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_event and delete_event by verb alone, though it never names them.

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 explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no reference to alternatives such as update_event for modifying an existing event. Usage is implied by the verb 'create' and the defaults it describes.

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