gws.cal.create_event

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the return value (event ID and link), the requirement for RFC3339 timestamps with timezone offset, and the user confirmation step. Annotations already indicate mutation, but the description enriches the behavioral expectations.

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?

Four concise sentences, each providing essential information without redundancy. The description is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 creation tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: action, return value, timestamp format, calendar default, and user interaction requirement. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 covers all parameters, but the description adds meaning: it clarifies that start/end must include timezone offset in the RFC3339 format, and explains the default behavior of calendarId. This goes beyond the schema's terse field 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 tool creates a calendar event on the account's calendar, using the verb 'create' and specifying the resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_event and list_events by focusing on creation and mentioning return of the event ID and link.

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 on default calendar behavior (primary unless calendarId given) and instructs to preview details with the user before calling. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use cases.

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