create_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that a new event is created and returns the event with an assigned UID, and mentions backward-compatibility behavior for calendar_name. However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, conflict behavior, or side effects beyond creation.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a compact, well-organized parameter list and return note. Every line earns its place, and the formatting makes it easy to scan.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations, the description covers parameters, formats, defaults, and the return value well. It lacks explicit guidance on error cases, permission requirements, or when to prefer sibling tools, but the core information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 0%, but the description compensates thoroughly by explaining all 7 parameters, including ISO 8601 format for start/end, the calendar_name provider-prefix rule, the default fallback, and the meaning of description, location, and rrule. This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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 states a specific action ('Create a new calendar event'), a specific resource ('iCloud calendar'), and is clearly distinct from update_event/delete_event. It also enumerates the main fields immediately, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does.

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 implies its use case by saying 'Create a new', but it never explicitly contrasts with update_event or delete_event, or says when not to use it. The usage context is clear, but no direct alternative guidance is provided.

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