calendar_create_event

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

Annotations already signal a non-readonly, non-idempotent mutation; the description adds a valuable side effect by stating that attendees are automatically emailed and that no separate send step exists. It also discloses the return fields. This exceeds annotation coverage, though it does not discuss authorization or calendar prerequisites.

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 definition is short, with the action front-loaded, a critical side-effect in the second sentence, and a compact return specification. It contains no filler and does not redundantly restate schema details.

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 a nested parameter schema that already explains formats, defaults, and nullable fields, the description covers the high-level operation, side effects, and return value. It does not mention calendar discovery for non-primary calendars, but that is a minor omission given the schema and sibling tools.

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 description itself adds no parameter-level detail. However, the nested EventCreateInput schema fully documents each property, including start time formatting, all-day vs timed events, calendar_id default, and attendee_emails, so the agent can still invoke the tool correctly. The description neither repeats nor enhances this schema information.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a new calendar event') and clearly scopes the operation with optional attendee invites. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as calendar_update_event, calendar_delete_event, and calendar_list_events without requiring schema inspection.

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?

It provides clear context that this is the creation entry point and warns that attendee invitations are sent automatically with no separate send step, which prevents a redundant email step. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the create/update/delete sibling set makes the intended use obvious.

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