calendar_quick_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state the core action (create) and input format (natural language), but it does not mention any potential side effects, permission requirements, error handling, or confirmation behavior. The example provides some context but not sufficient depth for full transparency.

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 sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. The inline example is highly illustrative without extra fluff. Every word earns its place, making it an excellent model of conciseness.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, one required), the description covers the essential context: what it does and how to phrase input. The presence of an output schema means return values are handled elsewhere. It lacks a note about the optional calendar_id and the structured alternative, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'text' parameter well with a realistic example, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Text' title. However, it does not mention 'calendar_id' at all, leaving that parameter's purpose and optionality unclear beyond the schema's default 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 uses a specific verb ('Create an event') and resource ('event'), and adds the critical qualifier 'from natural language' with an example ('Lunch with John tomorrow at noon'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling calendar_create_event, which presumably requires structured fields, making the 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 implies the use case through the natural language input example, making it clear that this tool is for free-form event creation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for structured, programmatic creation) or name alternatives like calendar_create_event, so it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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