Create Calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the calendar is 'additional' and scoped to the 'signed-in user,' clarifying that it does not create a shared or delegated calendar. However, it does not mention permission requirements, duplicate-name behavior, or what the response returns, leaving notable gaps for a create operation.

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 core English description is a single, front-loaded sentence that delivers the purpose efficiently. The Chinese intent block is redundant but compact and serves intent-matching for non-English queries, so it does not meaningfully harm readability or structure.

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 simple one-parameter creation tool, the description plus full schema coverage cover the essential semantics of what the tool does and what input it takes. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not disclose the return value, required auth scopes, or behavior on duplicate names, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter `name` with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the descriptive burden. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states, warranting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Create an additional calendar for the signed-in user,' providing a specific verb (create), resource (calendar), and scope (additional, user-scoped). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like calendar_create_event, calendar_list_calendars, and calendar_update_calendar. The Chinese intent phrases reinforce the same meaning without introducing ambiguity.

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 implies usage context through 'additional calendar' and 'signed-in user,' suggesting when it applies. However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives like calendar_update_calendar or calendar_delete_calendar for related operations. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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