calendar_add_attendee

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes 'requires approval', which is useful, but it omits critical details such as whether approval is synchronous, whether the attendee is added immediately or after approval, and any permissions or error conditions. The relationship to the sibling 'approve_action' tool is not clarified.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and a key constraint ('requires approval'). It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices depth for brevity. No fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, the approval workflow, error handling, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'calendar_update_event' and 'approve_action'. The presence of a sibling 'approve_action' suggests a multi-step process that is entirely undocumented.

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 67% (event_id and email have descriptions). The description adds little beyond the schema, but it clarifies the high-level purpose. The 'calendar_id' parameter has a default but no description, and the tool description does not explain its semantics. Since coverage is reasonably high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Add an attendee to an existing event'. This is a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('attendee' + 'event'), and the phrase 'existing event' distinguishes it from event creation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'update_event' tool, which could also modify attendees, so it's not a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'calendar_update_event' or 'approve_action'. The mention of 'requires approval' hints at a workflow but doesn't explain the approval process or when this tool is preferred. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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