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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates an event but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it sends invitations automatically, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It lists key parameters without unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping required vs. optional).

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., event ID, success confirmation), error conditions, or side effects like sending emails to attendees. Given the complexity of creating calendar events, more context is needed for effective use.

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 schema fully documents all 7 parameters with their types, optionality, and formats. The description lists the parameters but adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of valid locations or attendee formats). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('Create') and resource ('calendar event') along with key attributes (title, description, time, location, attendees). It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like send_email or send_message, which might also involve scheduling or notifications.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for calendar events, or how it differs from sibling tools like send_email (which might involve scheduling) or execute_command (which could trigger related actions).

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