decline-calendar-event

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true. The description adds value by stating that 'The event remains in the calendar as declined unless the user deletes it' and mentions optional body parameters for sending a response with a comment. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It includes a tip and additional context, but is slightly verbose. Still, every sentence adds value, and it is not excessively long.

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 destructive nature (annotation), missing output schema, and high schema coverage, the description adequately covers the main behavior, the body parameter options, and the result. It also references external documentation for proposing new times, making it fairly complete.

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 75% (high). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the proposedNewTime parameter and providing an example of the optional body: '{ sendResponse: true, comment: 'Cannot attend, conflict.' }'. However, it does not address includeHeaders or excludeResponse, though the schema covers them.

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 tool's purpose: 'Decline invitation to the specified event in a user calendar.' It uses a specific verb (Decline) and resource (event in calendar), distinguishing it from siblings like accept-calendar-event or cancel-calendar-event.

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 context on when to use the proposedNewTime parameter ('If the event allows proposals for new times') and includes a tip about optional body parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use the tool compared to alternatives like cancel-calendar-event or tentatively-accept-calendar-event.

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