create_event

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral facts: recurrence via rrule, calendar requirement with no default, and lack of validation against calendar type. This goes beyond a bare statement, though it could mention permissions or return values. There is no contradiction with annotations (none provided).

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then address the non-obvious parameters. No wasted words, and the structure is 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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description covers the main behavioral pitfalls (recurrence, calendar requirement, validation, timezone/default-duration reference). It could be more explicit about when to use vs siblings, but it is a functional summary for a creation tool with seven parameters.

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 only 29% (start and end have descriptions). The description compensates by explaining rrule format with an example and clarifying that calendar is required in practice and not validated, which are key semantics. Other obvious fields (summary, location, description) need no elaboration, and it points to parameter docs for start/end details.

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 tool creates an event, explicitly distinguishes single vs recurring via rrule, and the verb+resource definition differentiates it from sibling tools like update_event or 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?

Provides practical context: rrule for recurring events, calendar required in practice with no default, and events not validated against calendar type. It also advises reading parameter docs before writing. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, though the guidance is clear enough.

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