create_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral nuances: attendees are 'treated as required', is_online_meeting adds a Teams link, default time_zone is UTC, and it returns a 'trimmed created event'. It does not mention side effects like automatic invitations, but for a creation tool this is reasonably transparent. The 'trimmed' wording is vague but not misleading.

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 well-structured list that is easy to scan. Each parameter is explained in one line, and the purpose is front-loaded. Despite the length, every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff. The format is optimal for an agent to parse.

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 13-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers most parameters, defaults, and return value. The only omissions are include_raw (not mentioned) and the exact meaning of 'trimmed'. These are minor and do not prevent correct invocation. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 12 of 13 parameters (all except include_raw) with meaningful context, including datetime format, time_zone pairing, body_type options, and attendee semantics. Missing include_raw is a minor gap. Given the high number of parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is a strong compensatory effort.

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 begins with 'Create a calendar event.' which is a clear, specific verb+resource statement. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_event, delete_event, cancel_event, etc., by clearly indicating creation. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative routing. It implies creation by its name and purpose, but it lacks explicit guidance such as 'use this for new events; for existing events use update_event.' Since the sibling list includes many event tools, this is a missed opportunity.

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