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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the side effect of auto-moving the event to 'Proposal Sent', the lock behavior limiting guest menu changes, the default confirmation gate (switchable), and the requirement to confirm because it reaches other people. The annotations only cover read/write/open-world/destructive hints, so this description adds substantial behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and packed with useful caveats, but the first two sentences restate the same idea ('Send the event proposal' vs 'Sends the current proposal of one event to its contact'), which is mild 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return/side-effect burden, and it does cover the auto status change, lock behavior, consent requirements, and auth needs. Slightly more could be said about what the guest-facing flow returns, but it is essentially complete.

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 100% — both event_id and message are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or format, so the baseline of 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 — 'Send the event proposal to the guest' — and clarifies it sends the current proposal of one event to its contact. It also distinguishes the action from siblings like send_email or set_event_status by noting the automatic status change to 'Proposal Sent'.

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?

Usage context is implied by the purpose, and preconditions (user's Cotlet API key with app access, per-call confirmation) are given. However, no sibling tools are named as alternatives and there is no explicit when-not guidance, so it stays at implied usage.

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