Quick-add an event

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

Annotations only declare read-only false and open-world true; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: Google performs the parsing, the calendar's own timezone is used, the parser guesses and may be wrong, attendees/descriptions are unsupported, and the agent should verify the returned start/end. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short blocks with no fluff: the core purpose is front-loaded, behavioral caveats follow, and the Args section is clean. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (3 params, 1 required), and the description covers all parameters, timezone behavior, parser limitations, and the need to verify the returned time. With an output schema present, the description is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 parameter burden. It explains text with concrete examples, calendar_id as the target calendar, and account as a named account from 'calendar-mcp accounts' with an omit-for-default instruction. This adds real meaning beyond the bare 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb ('Create'), a resource ('an event'), and the distinctive mechanism ('parsed by Google'). It also differentiates from sibling create_event by noting that attendees and descriptions are not handled, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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 makes the intended use case explicit: turning plain-English phrases into events, with the caveat that the parser guesses and does not support attendees or descriptions. It also gives account-selection guidance via 'calendar-mcp accounts', though it does not explicitly name the structured alternative.

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