create_calendar_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it creates an event and mentions using 'accli', but does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether it modifies any existing events), permission requirements, or reversibility. This is minimal information for a mutation tool.

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 with zero waste. It conveys the essential purpose immediately and efficiently. Every word adds value, and the parenthetical mention of 'accli' gives useful implementation context without bloating the text.

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 simple create operation with a well-documented schema, the one-sentence description provides a basic level of completeness. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain return values, error behaviors, or any additional context about calendar selection or requirements. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but it does not need to since the schema already documents each field with examples.

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 tool's function: 'Creates a new event in Apple Calendar'. The verb 'Creates' is specific, and the resource is unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_calendar_events by focusing on the create action.

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 usage (when you need to add a calendar event) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks exclusions or mention of related tools for viewing or listing events, but the simple name makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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