calendar_task_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the task appears in Calendar on its date; it says nothing about whether the task is created immediately, what happens if the target list does not exist, or any permissions/side effects. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero wasted words. Its terseness is more a completeness gap than a conciseness problem, but it is arguably too minimal to stand alone.

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 input schema is fully described and simple (6 params, one required), which covers most of what an agent needs to call it. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain mutation behavior and success semantics; the single-sentence description leaves that gap.

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 100%, so every parameter (date, list, time, notes, title, starred) is already documented in the schema with defaults and formats. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what is structured, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Google Task', and adds where it surfaces ('shown in Calendar on its date'). That is enough to distinguish it from event creation (calendar_create) and the other task siblings by name, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with calendar_task_update or calendar_create.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus calendar_task_update or calendar_create, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only signal is the verb 'Create', which leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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