rsvp_to_invite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that a standard reply email is sent to the organizer, that the reply is queued like any email, the 'once per answer' constraint, and the delivery-confirmation workflow. It does not mention auth requirements or whether the RSVP can be changed afterward.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the mechanism and workflow hints. Dense but every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of the name.

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 4-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, side effect, parameter sourcing, and the returned `message_id` follow-up. The unexplained `address` param is the main remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add value for two of four params: it enumerates the valid `response` values and gives the provenance of `event_id`. But `address` and `comment` are completely unexplained, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 (answer) and resource (calendar invitation), and the tool's effect is unambiguous: it sends a calendar reply email to the organizer. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like update_calendar_event or reply without opening the 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 clear context: `event_id` comes from list_calendar_events or `calendar_event.event_id`, call it once per answer, and use wait_until_sent with the returned message_id. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g., update_calendar_event for changing an existing response), so it falls just short of 5.

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