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 of behavioral disclosure. It states it creates an event but does not mention required permissions, side effects (e.g., sending invitations), success/failure responses, or any mutation-related caveats. The lack of such context is a notable gap for a create operation.

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 compact: a one-sentence purpose followed by a structured Args list. It is front-loaded with the action and then efficiently details each parameter without redundancy.

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 covers the action and parameter semantics well, but lacks any mention of return value or error handling, and the tool has no output schema. Given there are six parameters and no annotations, the gap is minor; the essential invocation details are 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 thoroughly compensates by documenting every parameter: ISO 8601 format with examples for start/end, IANA timezone for timeZone, and defaults for optional description/location. This adds significant meaning 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 opens with 'Creates a calendar event using the provided details,' which clearly identifies the action (create) and the target resource (calendar event). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events, update_event, and delete_event.

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 tool's usage is implied by its name and the verb 'creates,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over update_event (e.g., for new events) or any exclusions. No alternatives are mentioned.

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