create_event

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds useful context that times must be ISO 8601 in the specified time_zone, which is non-obvious. However, it does not disclose side effects like attendee invitations or calendar selection behavior, but the annotations provide a basic safety profile.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the core purpose and the most critical input format requirement. Every clause adds value, making it appropriately concise.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too minimal to provide a complete picture. It omits return value expectations and meanings of non-obvious parameters like attendees and is_online_meeting. The addition of time zone handling is helpful but leaves major gaps.

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%, and the description only clarifies the time_zone parameter and ISO 8601 format for start/end. The remaining parameters (subject, body, location, attendees, is_online_meeting) are left entirely to their names, which can be ambiguous (e.g., attendees format). This does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'create' with the resource 'calendar event', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_event or delete_event. The added time format clause reinforces the function without ambiguity.

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 usage for creating new calendar events but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or exclusions, such as using update_event for modifications. No alternative tools are referenced, so the agent must infer from the verb 'create'.

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