gcalendar_events_quick_add

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

Annotations cover the mutation and open-world profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: Google itself parses the time and title, meaning the caller does not control field extraction and results may be approximate. It does not mention what happens on ambiguous text or what is returned, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tight sentences: the capability and example come first, the sibling routing second. Every clause carries load and nothing is repeated from 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 create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers input semantics and tool selection well. The one gap is that it never indicates what the call yields (e.g., created event identifier), which an agent creating an event would likely need for follow-up calls.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns one extra point by supplying a concrete example of the free-text format for the required 'text' parameter, which the schema only describes as 'the text describing the event'. calendarId and sendUpdates are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (create an event) and specifies the input mode (plain-text description), which makes it immediately separable from gcalendar_events_insert. The inline example makes the intended input shape concrete rather than abstract.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this tool when you have free text, and use events_insert when the fields are already known. This names the alternative sibling and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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