Apple Event Collaboration Summary

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate that this is a safe read-only operation. It adds semantic context by explaining that attendee state is summarized for collaboration verification, but it does not disclose what dimensions of attendee state are covered or any operational constraints such as calendar access requirements.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and the intended outcome, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's role.

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 one-parameter, read-only summary tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the core contract well. It could be more specific about what 'attendee state' means or how 'shared' is determined, but the output schema likely fills in the return structure and the intended use is clear.

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?

The schema provides zero description for the only parameter, event_id, and the tool description never mentions event_id or explains how to obtain it. The phrase 'shared calendar event' indirectly implies that event_id refers to a shared event, but that is minimal compensation for 0% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('summarize') and resource ('attendee state for a shared calendar event'), and pairs it with a clear goal: allowing agents to verify collaboration and participation. This semantically distinguishes it from siblings like calendar_get_event and calendar_list_events, which focus on event details rather than attendee collaboration state.

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 frames when the tool should be used: to verify collaboration and participation for a shared calendar event. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'for raw event details, use calendar_get_event', but the intended use case is clear enough.

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