calendar_task_list_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a state side-effect ("it becomes the list shown"), which tells the agent creation changes the active list. However, it omits permissions, duplicate-name behavior, and what the call returns for this mutation.

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 that is fully front-loaded with the core action and the side-effect clause. Nothing wasted, nothing buried.

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 one-parameter creation tool with a fully covered schema and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The only minor gap is that it doesn't state what is returned or whether the new list's identity/name is confirmed.

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 single `list` parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) as "List name." The description adds no syntax, naming constraints, or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Create a new Google Tasks list"), which clearly separates it from sibling list operations like calendar_task_lists (read) and calendar_task_list_delete (delete). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the right tool when a new task list is needed rather than creating tasks within an existing list via calendar_task_create.

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