Create a calendar

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

The description is consistent with annotations: readOnlyHint=false matches the 'Create' action. It adds modest context beyond annotations by specifying the calendar is 'secondary' and 'owned by the user,' but it does not disclose side effects, duplicate-name behavior, or permission requirements. With annotations already covering the read-only/destructive profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 tight: one front-loaded purpose sentence plus a compact Args section with examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the docstring-style format is scannable. Slight deduction for the cryptic 'calendar-mcp accounts' reference, which assumes prior knowledge of another command.

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 low-complexity 2-parameter create tool with an output schema and annotations present, the description is largely complete: purpose, both parameter semantics, and default behavior are covered. The main gap is the absence of usage-routing guidance relative to siblings, but this is minor given how simple and well-typed the operation is.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: summary is given a concrete example ('Client work') and account is explained by source ('calendar-mcp accounts') plus default behavior. Both parameters receive meaning the raw schema lacks, making this a strong compensation for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb (create), resource (secondary calendar), and ownership (owned by the user), which is meaningfully more specific than the title. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like create_event by targeting a calendar resource rather than an event, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied via 'secondary calendar' — signaling this is not for the user's primary calendar — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the 21 siblings. The account parameter does add operational guidance ('Account name from calendar-mcp accounts; omit for the default').

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