Create Calendar Event

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

Annotations provide basic mutation flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral details: attendees receive invitations, addresses are validated/deduplicated/limited to 500, and ValidationError raised for invalid inputs.

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 a summary, parameter details, returns, and raises sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'optional' repeated) but overall efficient and clear.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 4 required), the description covers parameter syntax, error conditions, and side effects (attendees invited). The return type is vaguely mentioned but an output schema is noted to exist, so this is acceptable.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. The 'Args' section explains each parameter's meaning (e.g., account_id is Microsoft account ID, start/end in ISO format), adding critical semantic value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create a calendar event' with specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like calendar_update_event and calendar_delete_event by its focus on creation.

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 implicitly indicates this tool is for creating events, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools. The 'requires user confirmation' note is more about safety than usage context.

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