create-event

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It discloses that send_invites defaults to true and emails attendees, advising to set it false to avoid emails. It does not, however, describe other side effects, permission requirements, or return behavior, leaving significant behavioral unknowns 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Effectively communicates the essential optionality without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given 14 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, a brief description leaves gaps. It omits any mention of required fields, reminder settings, all_day, location, or event_type, which an agent would need to know for correct invocation. The schema provides some parameter descriptions, but the description alone is not comprehensive enough for such a complex 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?

The description adds semantic value for send_invites ('avoid emailing attendees'), eventable_type/eventable_id ('optionally attached'), and user_ids ('with user hosts'). With schema description coverage at 50%, many parameters (all_day, reminder_type, location_id, etc.) lack explanations in either the description or the schema, so the description only partially compensates.

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 tool creates an event/appointment and mentions optional attachments to a matter/contact and user hosts. This distinguishes it from other create-* tools in the sibling list (e.g., create-note, create-task, create-contact).

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?

Provides clear context that the event can be optionally attached to a matter/contact and can have user hosts, indicating typical use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though no direct alternative event-creation tool exists in siblings.

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