Add a calendar event

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

Annotations declare write/non-destructive/non-idempotent/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: events cannot create new customers, blocksAvailability defaults to true, and an omitted duration falls back to the account default. It does not say what is returned or how duplicate creation is handled, which is a minor gap for a non-idempotent create.

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?

Front-loads the critical disambiguation ('NOT a job') and the create_job contrast before the softer details. The trigger-phrase enumeration and the trailing date-parsing sentence are slightly redundant with the schema's date description, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

Covers the key gaps an agent would otherwise hit for an 11-parameter create: the not-a-job boundary, optional customer/crew linkage, all-day vs timed handling, and default duration/availability behavior. With no output schema it would help to state what the tool returns (e.g. the new event id) so it can be referenced afterward.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-cutting parsing semantics for date/time ('pull the date and time from anywhere in the message', resolve relative dates via the DATE REFERENCE) and clarifies that customerName/crewMemberName must reference existing records. That is meaningfully more than the per-field schema text.

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?

States specific verb (add) and resource (calendar event) and immediately scopes it as 'NOT a job', naming the sibling create_job as the alternative for billable work. An agent can route between create_event and create_job from the description 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?

Explicit when-to-use with concrete trigger phrases ('event', 'block off', 'time off', 'meeting') and an explicit when-not plus the named alternative (create_job for billable customer work). Also covers the linking case (optionally tied to a customer and/or crew member).

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