decline-calendar-event

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description clarifies that 'the event remains in the calendar as declined unless the user deletes it,' adding important context beyond annotations. It also explains the proposedNewTime behavior and optional body fields, providing good insight into side effects and user experience.

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 concise (two sentences plus a tip) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the core action, the proposed time alternative, and the tip with optional fields. No redundancy or fluff.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior (event remains as declined), optional parameters, and the proposed new time feature. It could mention the return format (e.g., success/failure) but is otherwise complete for a typical decline action among many sibling calendar tools.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains the eventId usage ('Pass it under the name eventId... use the id field'), clarifies the confirm parameter's role for destructive operations, and describes the optional body fields (Comment, SendResponse, ProposedNewTime). Schema coverage is high (80%), but the description enriches understanding of critical parameters.

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 function: 'Decline invitation to the specified event in a user calendar.' The verb 'decline' and resource 'calendar event' are specific. It also mentions the optional proposed new time, distinguishing it from other event response tools like accept, tentatively accept, or cancel.

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 explains when to use the proposedNewTime parameter and provides a tip about the optional body (sendResponse, comment). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to decline vs. cancel) or provide exclusion criteria for when not to use this tool.

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