create_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the primary behavior (adds an event) and return type, but does not mention potential side effects, validation rules, or failure modes. Adequate but minimally transparent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall length is reasonable and each section (purpose, args, returns) is clearly separated.

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 create tool, the description covers the core behavior, parameters, and return value. Given the schema fully describes parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete enough, though it could add guidance on when to use bulk_create_events instead.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's Args section essentially repeats the schema descriptions, adding no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 creates a new calendar event, listing specific event types (workout, note, race, goal). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_event and delete_event by the action and resource.

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 implies usage for creating a single event, but does not explicitly contrast with bulk_create_events or other alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, though the context is clear.

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