create_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return behavior (confirmation with event link) and some parameter interactions (use_default_reminders vs reminders). However, it omits broader operational details such as authentication requirements, potential side effects (e.g., sending invitations to attendees), or any rate limits/destructive actions.

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 long but well-structured as a docstring with an Args section and Returns section. Every sentence adds necessary value given the schema lacks descriptions. The front-loaded 'Creates a new event' and clear formatting make it easy to scan despite the length.

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?

The description thoroughly covers all parameters and the return value. However, it omits critical operational context such as authentication prerequisites (e.g., requiring start_google_auth) and how the tool interacts with Google Calendar permissions. For a create operation with complex options, this is a minor but notable gap.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all 15 parameters with types, defaults, examples, and constraints (e.g., reminders max 5, RFC3339 format). This goes far beyond what the raw schema provides, adding meaningful semantics for each parameter.

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 opens with 'Creates a new event,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly identifies the action but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like modify_event or delete_event, so it lacks overt sibling differentiation.

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 usage is implied: this tool creates a new event. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as prior authentication. The description does not state 'use modify_event for changes' or similar guidance.

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