calendar_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'requires approval' which is valuable context about permissions/workflow, but doesn't describe what happens after creation (e.g., event status, confirmation), whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place: 'Create' (action), 'calendar event' (resource), 'requires approval' (key constraint). There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters (4 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is incomplete. The 'requires approval' note adds some context, but doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral outcomes, or error conditions. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should do more for a creation tool with multiple parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 5 parameters, the description provides no information about what each parameter means. It doesn't explain what 'title', 'start', 'end', 'attendees', or 'approval_id' represent, their expected formats, or relationships between them. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('calendar event'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like calendar_update_event and calendar_cancel_event by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like contacts_create_or_update, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidance with '(requires approval)', suggesting this tool should be used when creating events that need approval. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus calendar_update_event or when approval is required versus optional, and doesn't mention alternatives like calendar_list_events for checking existing events first.

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