calendar_create_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool 'creates' (implying mutation) and lists supported features, it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions, whether events are immediately saved, what happens with invalid inputs, or rate limits. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and follows with key supported features. Every element serves a purpose, though it could potentially be more concise by removing redundant information already covered in the schema.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens after creation (success response, error handling), doesn't mention authentication or permission requirements, and provides minimal guidance on usage context. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the full operational context.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that location, notes, attendees, and alerts are 'optional' features, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns beyond what's in the 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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a new event'), the target resource ('in Apple Calendar'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the type of operation (creation vs deletion, listing, updating). It mentions key event types ('all-day and timed events') which helps differentiate from other calendar tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calendar_update_event or calendar_list_events. It mentions what the tool supports but gives no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or when other tools might be more suitable.

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