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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, implying mutation. Description adds that the host is notified by email and can accept/decline, which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded sentences: core purpose, notification behavior, authentication details. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, and description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., success status, suggestion ID). Lacks explanation of error cases or what happens if the host declines. Adequate but not fully complete for an agent.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (endsAt, startsAt, suggestedBy, turnstileToken). Description does not add new meaning to parameters beyond what schema provides, 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?

Description clearly states the action (propose a different time) and the target (existing meeting on behalf of a guest). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like respond_to_suggestion (which handles the host's response) and create_meeting (which creates a new meeting).

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 explains when to use (proposing a time for a guest) and provides authentication context (Bearer PAT vs. anonymous with Turnstile token). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools for other scenarios.

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