google_calendar_createCreate a secondary Google Calendar with a name, timezone, and description to organize separate schedules and events.
Create a secondary calendar with a name, timezone, and description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| summary | Yes | Calendar name. | |
| timeZone | No | IANA timezone (e.g. America/Los_Angeles). | |
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.60Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose permission/scope requirements, whether the new calendar becomes visible in the calendar list, whether it is set as default, or what is returned. It only identifies the entity being created.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the entity and its configurable attributes are immediately clear.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits required fields (only 'summary' is required, yet the sentence implies all three are expected), permission needs, and side effects. An agent can guess how to call it but not the consequences.
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 75%, with the 'description' property undocumented in the schema. The description merely restates the three named fields without adding format, constraint, or interaction detail, so it does little beyond the 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 states a specific verb (Create) and resource (a secondary calendar), plus the fields it accepts. Calling it 'secondary' distinguishes it from editing the primary calendar, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus google_calendar_create_event, google_calendar_create_meet, or google_calendar_update. The word 'secondary' hints at scope but the agent must infer that this does not create events or meet links.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.