Create Event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful traits like attaching events to contacts, assigning to calendars, and supporting RFC 5545 recurrence rules. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., notifications), error behavior, or success response, leaving some ambiguity 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 description is well-structured with clear sections for purpose, requirements, and additional features. It is not overly verbose, and each sentence contributes meaning. It could be slightly more concise by removing the generic 'Use this tool...' opening, but overall it is 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?

Given the tool has 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: prerequisites, helper tools, and recurrence support. However, it does not mention what the response looks like after creation or any error conditions, which might be valuable for a create operation. Still, it is adequate for a straightforward creation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by flagging required parameters and directing users to get_calendars and get_users for valid calendar and user IDs, which enriches the semantics of calendar_id and attendees 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 clearly states 'Create a calendar event in Less Annoying CRM' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_event and delete_event by focusing on creation. It also clarifies the intended use case (scheduling meetings, calls, time-specific activities).

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('schedule meetings, calls, or other time-specific activities') and explicitly points to get_calendars and get_users for finding valid IDs, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for tasks) or name alternatives.

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