apple_calendar_create_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write profile is largely covered structurally. The description adds only the qualifier 'local' (implying a local Calendar.app store rather than a synced/remote calendar) but says nothing about duplicate-prevention behavior despite idempotentHint=false, nor about required permissions or what a repeated call produces.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which satisfies conciseness in size. But the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, since key invocation-relevant detail is simply absent.

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 7 mostly-undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description does far too little. It does not explain the required date-time inputs, default handling for optional fields, or the resulting event identity, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently.

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 only 14% (just 'calendar'), and 7 parameters with 4 required are otherwise undocumented. The description contributes zero parameter information — nothing about the required start/end date-time format, the meaning of allDay, or how title/location/notes are handled — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('Create a new ... event') that is unambiguous in isolation and distinct from sibling resources like create_calendar or update_event. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other calendar-event mutators (update_event, add_alarm, set_recurrence), leaving that routing to inference from the name.

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 offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g., that the target calendar must already exist), and no mention of alternatives such as apple_calendar_update_event or apple_calendar_create_calendar. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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