create_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job on the risky dimension: it discloses the DRAFT_ONLY_GOOGLE_ALLOW_ATTENDEES gate and the crucial caveat that guests may be notified or see the event despite sendUpdates being suppressed. However, it says nothing about which calendar the event lands in by default, permission requirements, or that repeated calls create duplicate events.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the format rules, ending with the highest-stakes caveat. No filler, though the final sentence is dense and could be split for readability.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description covers the side effects and date formats well but leaves half the parameters and the return value undocumented. An agent still lacks guidance on time_zone/calendar_id defaults and on avoiding duplicate creates.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds genuinely useful semantics for start/end (RFC 3339 or YYYY-MM-DD all-day) and attendees (env-var gated), but summary, location, time_zone, calendar_id, and description receive no explanation and must be inferred from bare titles.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a calendar event.' An agent can immediately distinguish this from list_events/get_event/update_event siblings, though the description never names those siblings or states the boundary 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 is implied by 'Create' plus the attendee gating rule, and the draft-only flag tells the agent when attendees will fail. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus update_event (e.g. that it always creates a new event rather than modifying an existing one), which matters for avoiding duplicate creation.

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