Zovo RSVP Page

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses two important behaviors: existing responders are skipped rather than overwritten, and nothing is sent to guests. It also notes the organizer link is required. Slight tension with idempotentHint=false is not a contradiction, since the skip rule concerns name collisions, not repeated calls, but the description could clarify what a repeat call does.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste: the trigger condition comes first, then the inputs, then the skip/no-notification behavior. Every sentence carries information an agent would not get from structured fields alone.

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 write tool with full annotation coverage, an output schema, and fully described parameters, the description covers trigger, limits, and collision behavior. Only the partial-failure case (some guests added, some skipped) is left unstated, which is a minor gap given the output schema.

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%, so the fields (name, answer, choice, extra_guests) and the organizer-link constraint are already documented. The description restates the same fields and the 1-50 cap without adding formats, defaults, or edge-case meaning. Baseline 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 and resource (record host-supplied RSVP answers on their RSVP page) and frames the scenario that triggers it. An agent can distinguish it from create_rsvp_page, update_rsvp_page, and show_rsvp_results without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition: the host collected answers outside the page (in person, by text) and wants them counted. It also implicitly routes self-service changes elsewhere ('that guest can change their own answer with their link'), but never states a when-not case such as using it for guests who already replied online.

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

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), while the description adds concrete behavior: what the published page collects, that a guest link and a separate organizer results link are returned, and a hard 105-day event-length constraint that would otherwise only surface as a runtime error. It also clarifies the negative scope (no email delivery, no payments), which the annotations cannot express.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and the produced artifact, then constraints, then exclusions. Nothing is repeated from the schema beyond a brief required-field reminder, and every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still names the two links an agent must surface to the user. For a twelve-parameter, open-world creation tool, the business constraint (105 days) and the negative scope complete the picture an agent needs before calling.

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%, so all twelve parameters, including formats and limits, are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that title, start, and time_zone are required, which the required array already conveys. This is the expected baseline when the schema carries the semantics; no meaningful extra meaning is added.

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 pairs a specific verb with a specific artifact: it publishes a shared web page where guests answer Yes/No/Maybe, add plus-ones, and answer an optional multiple-choice question. The outcome (a guest link plus a private organizer link) is stated, making it clearly distinct from update_rsvp_page, show_rsvp_results, and add_rsvp_guests without needing to open any schema.

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 opens with an explicit trigger condition ('Use this when the user wants guests to RSVP to an event') and then states what it does not cover: no invitations, emails, reminders, tickets, or payments. Those exclusions route the agent away from a tool that superficially sounds like event management, which is the main ambiguity risk here.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful context: it says the page is not changed and that only the private organizer link is accepted, which discloses a concrete failure mode. It stops short of describing auth requirements or any behavior on malformed links.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then what is returned, then the constraint. Nothing is repeated and every sentence carries information an agent needs before calling.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return shapes, though it helpfully summarizes the headcount and reply list. With the read-only annotations and a single fully documented parameter, there is no gap that would cause a mis-call.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema alone already explains manage_url and even notes that the guest link does not work. The description restates that constraint rather than adding new syntax or format guidance, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 pairs a specific verb and resource with the scope of what the tool returns: headcount, per-choice totals, and the reply list. It clearly separates itself from the sibling create_rsvp_page by naming the page type, and from guest-facing flows by saying it does not accept the guest link.

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 opens with an explicit trigger ('when the user asks who is coming, how many people are coming, or for meal-choice totals') and closes with a negative condition ('does not work with the guest link'). This is exactly the alternative-selection guidance an agent needs, with the failure condition stated up front.

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

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructiveness and open-world behavior, but the description adds real value beyond them: guests are not notified, replies are not deleted, and choices that already have replies cannot be removed. The partial-update semantics ('only the fields to change') further clarify behavior. It doesn't cover failure modes such as an expired manage link, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Three dense sentences: trigger and alternative first, edit surface and input convention second, constraints last. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 rich schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the definition covers everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly. Only minor omissions remain, such as what happens with a stale or invalid manage_url.

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%, so parameter detail is largely handled structurally (baseline 3). The description still adds the partial-update rule — pass only the fields to change — and names which fields are editable, which the schema cannot express as a set.

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 names a specific verb and resource (change an RSVP page) and enumerates what can be modified: replies open/close, title, time, location, note, plus-one limit, deadline, question choices. It explicitly anchors itself to the page produced by create_rsvp_page, so an agent can tell it apart from its siblings.

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?

'Use this when the host wants to change an RSVP page made with create_rsvp_page' gives a clear condition plus the alternative tool that owns the other case. It stops short of explicitly saying not to use this for initial creation or for guest-list changes (add_rsvp_guests), but the routing is unambiguous.

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