create_event

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only one trait: when end is omitted the event defaults to one hour from start. It says nothing about side effects (invitations being sent, notifications), permission requirements, the 'all calendars' fan-out implied by calendarId='all', or what is returned. For a create/mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler and the core action front-loaded, which is good. The second sentence ('Без конца — ставится час от начала') is elliptical and telegraphic, forcing the reader to reconstruct that it refers to omitting the end parameter, so brevity costs some clarity.

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?

Seven parameters, no annotations and no output schema mean the description has to do the heavy lifting, and it does not: default calendar behavior, whether attendees/notifications fire, the 'all' calendar fan-out and the return value are all unaddressed. Only the end-time fallback is covered.

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 100%, so the enum colours, ISO/date formats and calendarId semantics are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds one genuinely new fact not in the schema — the default one-hour duration when end is absent — but says nothing about defaults for calendarId or colorId.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Создать событие' / create event), which is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from list_events, update_event, delete_event and color_events. It does not, however, name any sibling or scope what kind of event/calendar it targets, so differentiation comes purely from the verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_event or the other siblings, no stated prerequisites (calendar access, required fields), and no mention of what happens when the event already exists. The only conditional guidance is the implicit 'if you omit end' rule.

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