create_calendar_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: 11 parameters, their defaults, and the hard constraint that start/end must be local time in ISO 8601 with UTC+8. It still omits permission/auth needs, what happens with duplicate or conflicting events, and what the call returns or mutates externally.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, then a clean parameter list with no filler. Minor redundancy in repeating types/defaults that partly appear in the schema, and inconsistent labeling ('str' vs 'optional', mixed Chinese/English), but it stays tight for an 11-parameter tool.

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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the agent enough to construct a valid call, including defaults and the timezone/format rule. It stops short of covering failure modes, permission prerequisites, and post-creation behavior, which an agent would plausibly want.

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% and there are 11 parameters, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning — and it documents every one with type, optionality, accepted values ('Text'/'HTML', 'low'/'normal'/'high'), and default. It adds format examples and the local-time requirement that the schema does not.

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 opening line gives a specific verb and resource (创建新日程) and pins the scope to the main calendar with an explicit UTC+8 timezone, which is a real constraint an agent needs. It distinguishes itself from update/list/delete_calendar_event by verb alone; there is no explicit sibling contrast, so it falls short of a 5.

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 never says when to create a new event versus updating an existing one (update_calendar_event) or how to discover existing events first (list_calendar_events). No prerequisites, permission requirements, or duplicate-handling guidance are given, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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