calendar_create_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates an event and can auto-generate a Google Meet link, which are important side effects. But it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether attendees will be invited, whether permissions are required, or what happens if the calendar is unavailable. This is somewhat typical for a mutation tool, but not fully transparent.

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 two clean sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the most critical input formatting and optional feature. No redundant or filler content, every sentence earns its place.

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 that this tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and only a minimal description, the description is not complete enough. While it covers the required fields and the Meet feature, it leaves many optional parameters to be inferred from their names, which might be insufficient for an AI agent to use the tool correctly without additional context. The presence of an output schema mitigates the lack of return-value documentation, but the parameter coverage gap remains significant.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning property names and types only. The description adds important semantics for 'start'/'end' (RFC3339 vs all-day format) and 'add_google_meet' (auto-generate link), which is helpful. However, it leaves the other six parameters (summary, location, timezone, attendees, calendar_id, description) entirely unaddressed, so the description insufficiently compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 begins with 'Create a calendar event', which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like calendar_update_event and calendar_delete_event. It also adds meaningful detail about datetime formats and Google Meet generation, making the purpose unmistakably clear.

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 provides explicit input formatting guidance (RFC3339 vs YYYY-MM-DD) and the add_google_meet flag, which helps with usage. However, it does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like calendar_quick_add or calendar_update_event, so selection guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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