decline-calendar-event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the description's job is to add context. It does by stating that 'The event remains in the calendar as declined unless the user deletes it,' which clarifies the persistence behavior. It also mentions the tip with an example body, conveying sendResponse and comment semantics, though it stops short of describing all recovery options or side effects.

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 two short paragraphs, with the core action front-loaded and a separate tip that offers a concrete example. It avoids unnecessary fluff but does repeat 'Declines a meeting invitation' in the tip, which is minor redundancy. The structure is clear and scannable for an agent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage: what it does, how to propose a new time, and the persistence behavior. It lacks an explicit statement about the response format, but that is not critical because the schema does not define one. It also points to further documentation for proposals. Overall, enough context for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 80%, so most parameters have descriptions. The description adds value by explicitly mentioning the proposedNewTime parameter and providing a concrete example body ('sendResponse: true, comment: ...'), which clarifies how to use the body object. It also reinforces the eventId usage, but the schema already explains that. Overall it augments the schema without redundancy.

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 action: 'Decline invitation to the specified event in a user calendar.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling operations like accept or cancel by focusing on declining, and the proposedNewTime option adds nuance.

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 implies the tool is used when the user wants to decline a meeting invitation, and it explains the optional proposedNewTime scenario. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as accept-calendar-event, tentatively-accept, or cancel, leaving the choice to inference. There is no clear 'when not to use' guidance.

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