create_calendar_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool creates events and returns details including UID, it lacks critical information about permissions required, whether attendees receive invitations, error conditions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example) and front-loads the core purpose. While the example is detailed, it serves a practical purpose. Some sentences could be more concise, but overall it's efficiently organized.

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 (6 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context. With no annotations and incomplete behavioral disclosure, it's adequate but has clear gaps for a creation tool.

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 description provides comprehensive parameter documentation beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, format requirements (ISO format for dates, comma-separated list for attendees), and optionality, adding significant value over the bare 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 the specific action ('Create a new calendar event') with the resource ('calendar event'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_calendar_event' or 'list_calendar_events'. The verb 'create' is unambiguous and directly communicates the tool's function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tentative_calendar_event' or 'accept_calendar_event', nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual constraints. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.

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