create_calendar_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default eventtype, the recurrence behavior when repeat_count > 0, and the return value (event id and metadata). However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence provides useful information: the action, the default, the recurrence option, and the return value. There is no wasted wording.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description gives essential behavior and return information but omits details about parameter interactions, prerequisites, and potential failure modes. It is adequate but leaves gaps that the schema cannot fully fill.

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?

The schema description coverage is only 44%, leaving many parameters (name, groupid, location, description, eventtype) without explanations. The description adds little beyond what the schema already states: it repeats the default for eventtype and the recurrence semantics for repeat_count, without clarifying the other parameters.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Create') and the resource ('calendar event'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_event and delete_event. It also provides key defaults and recurrence behavior, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 establishes clear context that this tool is for creating events, and the mention of default eventtype and recurrence helps guide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other operations, so it falls short of a 5.

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