create_event

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, correctly implying a non-read, non-idempotent mutation. The description doesn't contradict these but also adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations convey. It doesn't disclose behaviors like whether creating an event triggers notifications, invite emails to attendees, or requires specific permissions—gaps that matter for a write operation targeting a user's calendar.

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, concise sentence that states the core purpose without padding. It's appropriately brief, though under-specification means it doesn't earn a 5 since it conveys almost nothing beyond the tool name itself.

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?

With a 7-parameter tool, an output schema, and schema coverage at 100%, the description is minimum-viable but thin. It relies entirely on the schema and annotations for behavioral and usage context. The presence of quick_add as a competing creation tool, without differentiation, leaves the agent with ambiguous selection criteria—an area the description should have addressed.

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 coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters documented in the input schema. The description itself provides zero parameter information, but given full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies. The schema descriptions are adequate (e.g., ISO 8601 format, calendar ID defaulting to primary), so no significant compensation needed from the description.

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 'Create a new calendar event' uses a clear verb+resource structure, identifying it as a creation tool distinct from siblings like update_event, delete_event, and list_events. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from quick_add, which could also create events, and the purpose is fairly generic without specifying scope (which calendar, what fields supported).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. quick_add is a sibling that also creates events but the description doesn't differentiate when one should be chosen over the other. No context about prerequisites (e.g., needing to select a calendar first via list_calendars) or scenarios where creating an event is appropriate.

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