create_event

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

Annotations only indicate idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'create'—it doesn't mention idempotency implications, required authentication/authorization, whether duplicates are possible, or the structure of the created resource. With sparse annotations, the description carries more burden but fails to disclose meaningful behavioral traits.

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 opening purpose and usage sentences are concise and front-loaded. However, the Args section duplicates schema-provided parameter details, making part of the description redundant and not fully earning its place.

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 creation tool with a fully described schema and an output schema, the combination of description and schema is largely sufficient. It could benefit from noting side effects or response characteristics, but the essential context for invoking the tool is present.

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%, and the description's Args block essentially restates the same parameter descriptions found in the input schema. It adds no new semantic meaning, so it earns the baseline score for relying on schema completeness.

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+resource: 'Create a new planned workout, race event, or note on the calendar.' This clearly defines the tool's scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_event and delete_event.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when scheduling upcoming training or race events') and provides a direct alternative for modification ('To modify an existing calendar event, use update_event'). This gives clear guidance for tool selection.

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