calendar_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple creation statement by revealing a non-obvious default: attendees are NOT invited by default, and their names are placed in the description instead. It also explains that setting send_invites=true triggers Outlook to send invitation emails, which is a meaningful side effect. This is strong behavioral transparency, though it could additionally note whether the event is immediately visible or if any authentication is required.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a calendar event'), and immediately follows with a high-value clarification about attendees. There is no redundant information or filler, making it compact and efficient.

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?

The description adequately covers the primary purpose and the most complex behavioral nuance (invites) for a create tool with 8 parameters and no output schema. However, it does not mention return values, error handling, or account selection, which could be relevant in context. Given the schema covers required fields and property meanings, this is a reasonably complete description, though not exhaustive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the interplay between attendees and send_invites, including the default behavior and the exact effect of setting send_invites=true. This clarifies parameter usage beyond the static schema descriptions.

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 and resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like calendar_update, calendar_get, and calendar_delete. The additional detail about attendee invitation behavior further clarifies the tool's exact function.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., calendar_update for modifications, calendar_availability for checking slots). The usage context is implied by the verb 'create' and the sibling list, but no exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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