create_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes the three type variants, adding a small distinction, but omits side effects (e.g., invitations, notifications), the need for type_id for channel/company events, or any auth/restrictions. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It conveys the core purpose and the one non-obvious detail (type variants) efficiently.

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?

Given 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is very thin. It fails to explain return values, the relationship between type and type_id, or why company_id is required even for personal events. A more complete description would cover these essential aspects for successful tool invocation.

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?

All 14 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description merely repeats the type enum values already present in the schema, adding no extra meaning to any parameters.

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 'Creates a new calendar event' with a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like edit_event or invite_to_event, which prevents a perfect score.

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 verb 'creates' implies this is for new events, contrasting with edit/delete/list siblings. No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided, and the description doesn't explain when to choose each event type or mention prerequisites like required company_id.

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