decline-calendar-event

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

The description discloses a genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation: 'The event remains in the calendar as declined unless the user deletes it.' This tells the agent that declining does not remove the event, which is exactly the kind of side-effect an agent cannot infer from the schema. It does not contradict annotations and adds real value on top of the destructiveHint flag.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The TIP section is somewhat redundant ('Declines a meeting invitation' repeats the opener) and the 'see Propose new meeting times' reference is a dangling link with no URL. Otherwise every sentence earns its place, particularly the persistence note.

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 5-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, the alternative-time proposal flow, and the post-decline state. It lacks prerequisites (the caller must be the invitee), doesn't mention what the organizer sees (e.g., that a decline response is sent when sendResponse is true), and offers no routing to accept/tentatively-accept siblings. Adequate for the happy path, with clear gaps.

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?

With 80% schema description coverage, the schema already documents eventId, confirm, includeHeaders, and excludeResponse. The description adds meaning by explaining that ProposedNewTime lets an invitee 'suggest an alternative time' and by giving a body usage example. However, the example uses camelCase keys (sendResponse, comment) while the schema declares PascalCase keys (SendResponse, Comment), which could mislead an agent constructing the body.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Decline invitation to the specified event in a user calendar.' The 'invitation' framing implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like cancel-calendar-event (organizer action) and accept/tentatively-accept-calendar-event. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not, so it misses the top score.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given relative to accept-calendar-event, tentatively-accept-calendar-event, cancel-calendar-event, or delete-calendar-event, all of which are siblings. The only usage context is the conditional explanation of when proposedNewTime applies, which covers a sub-feature rather than tool selection. The invitee-vs-organizer distinction is left entirely to inference.

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