create-event

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds side-effect details: attendees receive invitations, returns id/webLink/meeting URL, and timezone behavior ('Times use the configured timezone... omit the `Z` suffix to send local time'). This goes well beyond 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 description is information-dense but well-organized: purpose, return values, timezone, and alternatives. It is not overly verbose and front-loads the core action.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining return values (id, webLink, meeting URL). It also covers timezone nuances and lifecycle management via manage-event, making it complete for a creation tool.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaningful context not in the schema, such as the timezone default and the auto-generated meeting URL when attendees are present, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new calendar event on the signed-in user's default calendar.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing `manage-event` for updates and deletions.

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 tells when to use the tool (to create a new event) and provides explicit alternatives: 'Use `manage-event` action=`update` to modify an event after creation, or `manage-event` action=`cancel`/`delete` to remove it.' This is clear when-to-use versus alternative guidance.

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