gcal_create_event

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only/non-idempotent, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context: a new event is created, a JSON dict with the event id is returned, and descriptions should carry Notion links when scheduling task blocks. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two-sentence purpose/when-to-use section, structured Args block, and Returns line are front-loaded and contain no filler. Every line earns its place, and the argument details are easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the call's purpose, parameters, task-link convention, defaults, and returned id, making it complete for a create operation. It would be stronger if it named the sibling schedule_task_block as an alternative for automatic scheduling, but nothing essential is missing.

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 Args section lists all six params with types, default calendar_id, and the Notion-URL instruction for description. Given the low schema-description coverage signal for the top-level params object, this fully compensates and adds task-workflow meaning beyond plain property names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Google Calendar event.' It distinguishes the tool from update/delete/get siblings and adds the Notion-task work-block convention, so an agent understands exactly what action this tool performs.

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?

It provides concrete context for use — creating work blocks for Notion tasks and linking the Notion URL. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with schedule_task_block, but the creation context is clear enough to route basic calls.

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