book_meeting

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral context: creates the event on the connected calendar, attaches a Google Meet link, and emails the attendee an invitation. It doesn't mention side effects like overwriting existing events or permission requirements, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a usage trigger, and a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place. It could be slightly tighter, but it's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool.

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 has an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what happens (event created, Meet link attached, invitation emailed) and when to use it. It doesn't mention failure modes or prerequisites (e.g., calendar must be connected), but the connected-calendar detail is implied. This is adequate for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains attendee_email ('Who to invite — the prospect who replied'), start ('When it starts, ISO 8601'), duration_minutes ('How long the meeting runs. Defaults to 30'), summary ('Event title. Defaults to naming the attendee'), and description ('Optional agenda or notes'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property names.

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 states a specific verb ('Book'), a resource ('a meeting on your Google Calendar'), and the action's purpose ('invite a prospect'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like send_email or send_message by specifying calendar event creation with a Google Meet link and attendee invitation.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when a reply agrees to a call,' giving a clear trigger condition. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over generic messaging tools.

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