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 states the basic action 'create' and offers no details about side effects, required permissions, validation, default behaviors, or response format. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and object. It contains no redundant words, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, no annotations), the one-sentence description is inadequate. It fails to mention required fields, default behaviors (e.g., all_day or create_meet_link), or what the agent should expect in response, making it insufficient for safe and correct 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema already documents each field with types and descriptions, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's action and resource: 'Create a new calendar event.' This distinguishes it from event-related siblings like update_event and delete_event, and from other create_* tools like create_task or create_client.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where it should not be used, such as updating an existing event.

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