create_calendar_event

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It does this well by explaining the dry_run mode ('By default runs in dry_run mode. Set dry_run=False to actually create') and the return value ('Returns: JSON with validated status and eventid if created'). It does not mention auth or error side effects, but the most critical behavioral trait is covered.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a critical dry_run note, a neatly formatted Args list, and a Returns line. Every section serves a clear function, with no fluff or repetition.

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 6-param mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics, the dry-run safety mechanism, and the return behavior. It lacks explicit error handling or prerequisite details, and does not position the tool relative to sibling tools, but overall it is reasonably complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section fully compensates. It explains all six parameters, gives a concrete ISO datetime example for timestart, and notes defaults for eventtype and dry_run. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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 opens with 'Create a calendar event', a specific verb+resource that clearly states the action. It even includes examples ('fecha de examen, entrega, etc.') and is distinct from sibling tools which focus on reads/lists and other domains like forums or grades.

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 clearly implies this tool is for creating calendar events, and the dry_run default with 'Set dry_run=False to actually create' conveys a validation-first workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, so guidance is implicit rather than fully explicit.

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