create_event

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

The description adds key behavioral details beyond annotations: it sends email invites, uses naive local time format, and declares irreversibility. This is consistent with the readonlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true annotations, and provides valuable context for safe invocation.

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: two sentences. The first sentence states the primary function, the second adds critical format and warning. Every word is necessary, no 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 the destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the irreversible action and the time format. However, it does not mention return value (e.g., event ID) or any prerequisites (e.g., calendar must exist). Slightly incomplete, but sufficient for a moderately complex 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for the time format (naive local, example value). The parameter names (subject, start, end, body, location, attendees) are self-explanatory, but the description does not elaborate on their purpose or constraints beyond the one hint.

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 the resource 'calendar event', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events, read_event, and check_availability by specifying that it also sends email invites to attendees.

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 explicitly says times are naive local with an example format, and warns that the action is irreversible and requires client confirmation. It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use this tool beyond the sibling list.

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