Book a meeting

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write; the description adds the crucial real-world consequence that actual calendar invites are sent and that user confirmation is required. It does not cover permission requirements, failure behavior on taken slots, or reschedule semantics.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the validity constraint and safety caution follow in priority order.

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?

Covers the action, the cross-tool prerequisite, and the side effect that matters most for a booking tool. Given annotations carry the safety profile and no output schema exists, the remaining gaps (conflict handling, returned event details) are minor.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description's constraint that start_at/end_at must exactly match a find_available_slots slot largely restates what the schema already says ('exactly as returned by find_available_slots'). No extra detail on time_zone, fields, or metadata beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Book a meeting') plus the scope qualifier 'on a scheduling link for someone', which cleanly separates it from cancel_meeting and find_available_slots in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite path — start_at/end_at must come from find_available_slots — and adds a caution to confirm details with the user first. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or which alternative to pick if the slot is unavailable.

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