createEvent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists supported features but does not mention whether attendee invitations are sent, whether authentication is required, what the created event response looks like, or whether creation is reversible. 'Create' implies mutation, but little else is disclosed.

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 one sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then packs the key capability details into a short supporting clause. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity of the nested event schema, the absence of annotations, and no output schema, this short description leaves important operational gaps: authentication prerequisites, default calendar behavior, return shape, and side effects like attendee emails. The feature list is helpful but insufficient for safe, confident invocation of a mutation tool.

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 reported as 0%, and the event object is large and nested. The description partially compensates by calling out all-day events, attendees, reminders, and RFC5545 recurrence rules, which map to schema properties. Still, it does not explain the required summary/start/end fields, the calendarId default of 'primary', or the overall structure of the event object.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Create an event on a Google Calendar.' It also names supported features, which clarifies scope. This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools getEvents, updateEvent, deleteEvent, and authenticate without any ambiguity.

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 imperative 'Create an event' provides clear, unambiguous context for when to use the tool. However, it gives no explicit exclusion like 'use updateEvent to modify an existing event' or 'call authenticate first,' so it stops short of fully explicit routing guidance.

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