calendar_create_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses several important behaviors: that guests are restricted to allowedRecipients, that no notification mail is sent unless sendUpdates is 'all', and that endDate is exclusive. It also clarifies timed versus all-day event requirements. These go beyond the schema, which is valuable for an agent anticipating side effects (e.g., no emails by default). Minor gap: it doesn't state whether events can overlap or what happens on partial failures (e.g., one guest invalid), but the key side effect of mail sending is covered.

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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the key distinction between timed and all-day events. It is concise, with no fluff, and each sentence adds meaningful information. It could be slightly improved by breaking into bullet points, but for its length, it is efficient and well-organized.

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?

With 11 parameters but no output schema, the description covers the most critical usage nuances: how to specify timed vs all-day events, the exclusive endDate rule, guest restrictions, and email notification behavior. Given the tool's complexity, the description addresses the likely failure points (format issues, guest acceptance, notification side effects). It is complete enough for an agent to correctly construct a request without additional external context.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for most parameters (82% coverage), including format examples for start and startDate, and the role of attendees. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between start/end and startDate/endDate (timed vs all-day) and reiterating the exclusivity of endDate, but since the schema already covers most semantics, the description's additional meaning is supplemental rather than essential. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because schema coverage is high, and the description does not introduce extra parameters or new clarified meaning beyond the schema's.

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 specific resource 'event on one Google Calendar', distinguishing it from sibling tools like calendar_update_event and calendar_delete_event. It covers the primary purpose without ambiguity, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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 focuses on mechanics (timed vs all-day events, guest restrictions) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calendar_update_event. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., calendar must exist) or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving usage context implicit.

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