create_calendar_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states this is a create operation and that it returns the created event details. It also hints at natural-language time parsing. However, it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, conflict behavior, or whether recurrence is truly supported (the 'every Saturday' example implies recurrence but no parameter exists).

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 clear sections: purpose, use cases, parameters, returns, and related tool. It front-loads the main purpose. It is somewhat long and repeats schema info, but that is acceptable given 7 parameters and the added natural-language guidance.

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 tool has 7 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, and no output schema. The description handles most essentials: purpose, when to use, parameter list, return value, and related tool. However, it omits details about recurrence behavior (despite implying it in an example), allDay interaction with times, timezone handling, and error or conflict scenarios.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by noting that startsAt/endsAt accept natural language in addition to ISO format, which is not in the schema. It also gives real-world examples for parameter usage, adding practical semantic value.

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 a specific verb+resource statement ('Create a new calendar event in Skylight') and is immediately distinguished from sibling tools like update_calendar_event and delete_calendar_event. The use-case bullets reinforce that this is for creating new events, not modifying or removing them.

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 explicitly provides 'Use this when' guidance with concrete examples for scheduling appointments, family activities, and reminders. It also points to get_family_members for category IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., updating or deleting events), so it misses the exclusion/alternative clause.

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