create_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains time formats, recurrence, and additional options like add_meet, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., creating a new event in the primary calendar by default), authorization needs, rate limits, or error handling. The mention of 'password' and 'account' parameters is unexplained.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. It packs many parameter details into a single paragraph, which is dense but efficient. However, it could benefit from bullet points or clearer section breaks to improve readability for an AI agent scanning for specific information.

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 has 25 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers most important parameters. It explains time, recurrence, attendees, reminders, and special features like add_meet. However, it lacks information about the return value (e.g., the created event object), error conditions, or constraints (e.g., maximum attendees). The 'password' and 'account' parameters remain ambiguous.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description entirely compensates. It thoroughly explains each key parameter: how to format start/end with time_zone or all_day, recurrence as RRULE lists, attendees as email lists, reminders structure, send_updates values, and extra_fields for custom options. This provides essential context beyond the raw 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 description clearly states 'Create an event' which specifies the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like import_event or quick_add_event, which also create events but in different ways. A more specific distinction would improve clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., quick_add_event for simple events, import_event for bulk). The description focuses on parameter details but omits context about prerequisites, such as requiring a calendar to exist, or when not to use it.

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