decline-calendar-event

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false), the description adds useful behavioral context: the event remains in the calendar as declined, and it explains the propose new time feature. It also gives a practical tip about optional body parameters.

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?

Description is well-structured, starting with the main action, then a tip, and additional context. It is concise enough but could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what the tool does, the proposal feature, and the event's post-decline state. It does not need to explain return values as there is no output schema.

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 75% (high), baseline is 3. The description adds value with a concrete tip example for body (sendResponse, comment) and clarifies the role of proposedNewTime. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Decline invitation to the specified event'. It is specific about the verb 'decline' and the resource 'calendar event'. This distinguishes it clearly 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 implies usage for declining invitations, but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools such as accept-calendar-event or tentatively-accept-calendar-event. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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