create_event

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'real' implying actual creation but omits details like required permissions, side effects, or error conditions. The input schema mentions access_token, but the description adds no extra insight.

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, front-loaded sentence that effectively communicates the core action. However, given the tool's complexity (7 parameters), it is somewhat sparse, but still concise without unnecessary words.

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?

The description is minimal for a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It does not explain return values, success/failure behavior, or how it fits with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

Since the input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, giving a baseline score of 3.

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 explicitly states 'Create a real Google Calendar event,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_calendar_link' which creates a link, not an event.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'find_meeting_slots' or 'check_business_hours'. The description lacks any context for decision-making.

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