Create Schedule Event

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

Annotations are present but minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), and they don't contradict. The description is sparse, but the schema provides substantial behavioral context, such as conditional requirements (end required when isStartOnly=false, eventType affects validation), defaults, and the distinction between isAllDay and ALL_DAY. The description itself doesn't add much, but it doesn't need to since the schema is rich. However, it doesn't mention any side effects like sending notifications to attendees, which might be expected. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, a 4 is justified due to the lack of contradiction and the schema's richness.

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 that clearly states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately short and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as mentioning that it creates a calendar event. But given the tool's name and schema, it is efficient. A 4 is reasonable.

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 (13 parameters, nested objects, conditional logic, output schema) and the rich schema descriptions, the description itself is minimal but the schema carries the context. The output schema is present, so return values are not needed. However, the description does not mention any prerequisites like authentication, required permissions, or how to handle facility usage, which might be important. With the schema being thorough, but the description lacking any high-level guidance, a 3 is appropriate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description of the tool does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. However, the schema descriptions are quite detailed, explaining nuances like isAllDay vs ALL_DAY and the conditional requirement for end. The tool description itself doesn't go beyond the schema, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so a 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 it creates a new schedule event in Garoon with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like garoon-get-schedule-events, but that is less critical for a create operation. The purpose is specific enough, but could mention that it adds an event to a calendar.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the context of creating a schedule event is implicit from the name and description, and sibling tools are mostly for reading (get) or searching, so the usage is inferred. However, there is no exclusions or alternatives mentioned, so a 3 is appropriate.

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